THE  FIGURE  OF  INTERROGATION  AND  ITS  USE  IN 
CICERO’S  PHILIPPICS 

BY 

JOHN  FRANK  CHERF,  O.  S.  B., 

A.  B.,  St.  Procopius  College,  1915 


THESIS 

Submitted  in  Partial  Fulfillment  of  the  Requirements  for  the 

Degree  of 

MASTER  OF  ARTS 
IN  CLASSICS 

IN 

THE  GRADUATE  SCHOOL 

OF  THE 

UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS 
1921 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2016 


https://archive.org/details/figureofinterrogOOcher 


1 


PREFACE. 


The  Philippic  orations  of  Cicero  were  chosen  as  a basis  for  this 
study  on  the  figure  of  interrogation,  because  they  are  replete  with  rhet- 
orical questions  and  are  the  product  of  his  mature  years.  Clark’s  text 
(Oxford,  2 ^50)  has  been  used.  Whenever  reference  is  made  to  the 

Philippics,  book,  chapter  and  paragraph  are  cited  without  naming  the  work. 
Reference  to  other  works  is  made  tv  author,  title  and  paragraph,  unless 
otherwise  stated.  An  exception  is  Spengel’s,  Phetores  Cr3eci  and  Pain's, 
Phetores  Latini  Minores.  With  them  I have  followed  the  accepted  usage  of 
referring  to  page  and  line. 

As  to  questions,  the  number  treated  under  the  figure  of  interrogation 
is  in  sum  total  about  one  hundred  sixty  in  excess  of  the  actual  number  of 
question  marks  found  in  the  text.  This  is  due  to  the  separation  into  their 
several  members  of  such  questions  as,  "Quid  viderss,  quid  senseras,  quid 
audieras?"1  and”Cur  armatoruro  corona  senatus  saeptus  est,  cur  me  tui  sa- 
tellites cum  gladiis  auaiunt,  cur  valvae  Ccncordiae  non  patent,  cur  homi- 
nes omnium  gentium  maxims  barbaros,  Ituraeos,  cum  sagittis  deducis  in 
forum?”  It  will  be  noticed  that,  although  only  one  question  mark  is  used 
in  either  instance,  both  citations  contain  several  distinct  questions. 

Each  member  of  such  series  was  counted  as  a separate  question. 


i.33.83. 


********** ******************** 
r 
4. 


5.44.112. 


. 


I have  examined  all  available  texts  of  the  orations  under  consider- 


ation and  have  found  that  all  of  then  have  not  only  more  subdivisions  of 

. -jt  A-*-w.  A 

lon^  questions,  but  that  a lar^e  number  of  sentences  are  punctuated  as 
Questions,  which  Clara  does  not  treat  ss  such* 

The  assistence,  which  I have  received  from  works  listed  in  the  bib- 
liography is  not  acknowledged  in  each  particular  instance. 


TAFIE  OF  CONTENTS 


Chapter  • ' Pa2e 

preface.  . 

I.  Ancient  Discussion  on  the  Fhetorical  Question.  ...  3 

II.  Fhetorical  Question  Defined .10 

III.  Woods  in  Rhetorical  Questions Q9 

IV.  Types  of  Questions 39 

'Word  Questions .40 

Sentence  Questions.  ...  . . . 34 

Questions  without  Particles  71 

V.  Questions  with  Etpbasis 79 

VI.  Conclusion  ............  38 

Pitlio^raphy  90 


2 


I.  ANCIENT  DISCUSSIONS. 

Eefore  entering  on  3 discussion  of  the  ter®  "rhetorical  Question"  and 
its  application,  it  will  not  be  irrelevant  to  state  the  usage  among  the 
ancients  of  such  tens  ss  ax^uaTx  xr\t;  XeEew^  f\  xou  Xoyou  and  t r]c, 

Siavofac,  meaning  tropes  and  figures  respectively.  The  word  axrj'iaTji  ori- 
ginally meant  "form",  "appearance",  a mere  "outside"  line  the  Latin  "bati- 

1 2 
tus"  , then  by  analogy  an  "assumed  character",  the  Latin  "persona"  » Con- 
sequently its  application  to  denote  a figurative  expression  was  easy  and 
appropriate.  It  is,  however,  impossible  for  us  to  trace  its  history  tack 

to  the  one  who  first  used  it  in  combination  with  X£Ei<;  ana  Sixvoia  ho  de- 

\ 

signate  tropes  and  figures.  Ccrax  of  Sicily,  who  flourished  about  4^0  ?.C., 

2 

is  thought  to  be  the  first  to  write  a treatise  on  Fnetorie  . Whether  he 

treated  of  figures  and  tropes  cannot  be  accertained.  From  the  time  of 

4 

Theophrastus  of  Fresus  { r _ 2 B.C. ) cn  t the  subdivision  of  ornaments  of 

*************  ***************** 

Cf.jxrjH01  tIkvojv  , Furip.,  Wed.,  1072;  cuSev  jtXXc  rrXrjv...  ax^ixa,  I dem. 
Frag* ^2*. 

Cf.  Plat. , Ale. , 1.  13p  D,  fiaiJcSaXelv  to  ox^a  • lh  was  also  used  to  de- 
note metrical  form,  as  jxrjjia  TUC  XsEew^...  epiaeTpov,  Arist.,Rhet.,  3.91;  and 
grammatical  form,  Idem,  Soph.  Flench.,  4.1. 

'Cf.  Cic* , Prutus, 12.4*; Cic*, De  Orat. , 1. 20.91; 3. 51. 31;  Quint. , Inst. 

Orat. , 2. 17.  7;  9. 1.  8. 

4 

Cf.  Vol&mann, Die  Rhetorik  der  Gr.  and  Rflm. , p. 394; Schmidt , Comment stio 
de  Theopbrasto  Rhetore,p*37  ff.;Rabe,De  Theophrasti  Lifcris  n e pi  AlEsooc. 


4 


style  began  to  assume  a more  definite  shape.  Still  it  is  not  certain  whe- 
ther he  used  the  technical  terms  for  such  a subdivision.^  His  wor«  nsp\ 
u)^  is  too  fragmentary  to  afford  any  definite  prcc  . 7e  do,  however, 
find  the  expression  jx^ioitoi  The  XIEew;  and  oxuuaTjc  iqc  5 1 cxv o t cx ^ in  the 


sense  of  tropes  and  figures  in  the  writings  of  his  pupil,  Eemetrius  of 
phaleruiB.  He  either  embodied  in  his  work  the  teaching  of  his  master,  which 
the  master  himself  did  not  commit  to  writing  or  if  he  did  it  perished,  or 
he  was  the  originator  of  those  expressions.  In  his  treatise  on  style  he 

3 

speaas  of  the  "forms  and  figures  of  thought""  and  of  the  "figures  of  lan- 
4 

guage".  Prom  about  the  time  of  Theophrastus  on,  greater  interest  was 
taken  in  the  field  of  rhetoric,  especially  at  Pergamus  by  the  Stoics  and 
at  Rhodes,  whither  Aeschines  had  betaken  himself  and  founded  a school  of 
Rhetoric,  after  his  defeat  in  an  oratorical  contest  with  Eemosthenes.  It 
is  then  that  the  expressions  JXUH»To(  trjc  XfFe co c xal  Siavota;  appear  more 


***********. ******************** 


1 


Vayer:  Theophrast us, p. note  1,  maintains  that  in  the  age  of  Theo- 
phrastus the  terms  Xli-ew^  an(^  JX^fxaxoi  irj<;  5tavbfot;  were  not  in 

vogue  and  furthermore, that  the  second  class  was  utterly  unknown.  He  says 
ibid. , I [ [.  1,  "Initium  capiamus  a Caeeilii  Calsctitae  nepl  axwifidtxwv  doctri- 
na,  cuius  jxn.udtTwv  divisio  h.aec  est:  ’Una  est  species  f ig urarum,  quae  in 
uno  t ant  am  verfco  locum  hafce't;  alterum  genus  est  earum  f igurarum,  quae  ad 
totam  vertcrum  comprehensionem  pertinet1  ".  Caecilius  lived  in  the  second 
half  of  the  first  century  F.C.  Jefcfc, Attic  Orators, Vcl. 1, pp. 28-29,  holds 
the  same  view.  Of.  Cic.,Ee  Orat. , 1. 13. Quint. , Inst. Orat. , 7. 1. 1*. 

^Eemetrius  ruled  over  Athens  during  the  years  217-?07  F.C.  and  died 
in  23^  P.C.,  but  four  years  after  the  death  of  his  teacher. 

On  Style, 2^7,  lot  ,usv  Eton  5ixvofot<;  xal  ax^notta.. . . 

4 

Itid.,267,  tx  5s  ttk  X£Eswg  ax^jiarx  TooaXcTepov  IxXlyovta  Ijti  5 e t — 
v$teoov  notslv  tov  Xoyov...  Cf.  also  ifcid.,59>  to<  51  Trj$ 

and  271. 


' 


■ 


and  more  frequently  in  the  writings  of  rhetoricians,  as  Hermagoras  of 
Temnus  (about  150  F.C. ),  Apollonius  of  Fhodes  (150  F.C.  ),  Volon  of  Fhodes 
(30  F.C. ),  Caecilius  of  Calacte  and  Dionysius  of  Hal  icarnassus,  and  espe- 
cially when  the  art  of  rhetoric  reached  its  climax  at  Foire  in  the  writings 
of  Cicero  and  Quintilian.  It  is  interesting  to  note  how  the  Romans,  who 
had  no  word  to  convey  exactly  the  idea  of  ax^uaTa,  used  various  expressions 
supplementing  them  with  the  explanat  ion,  "quae  Graeci  vocant  axqiuotTot  • ” Thus 
Cicero  says:  "...  illam  autem  coneinnitat em,  quae  verborum  col locat ionem 

illurainat  eis  luminibus,  quae  Graeci  ouesi  aliquos  gestus  orationis  ax^uot- 
2 

xa  appellant.”  "...  orationis  auasi  formae  et  lumina,  quae  ut  dixi, Graeci 

4 

vocant  jx^M»tx";  and  a^ain:  "At  cum  de  ornamentis  verborum  sentent i arurrve 

p 

praecipitur,  quae  vocant  axquata,  non  fit  idem.”  Quintilian  is  the  first 
to  translate  axquaia  by  "figura",  when  he  says:  "Schemata  utraque,  id  est 
fiAuras,  quae  X £?£<*)  c » quaeque  Stavofju;  vocantur.  " From  then  on,  "figure”  is 
the  regular  word  for  axq.ua.  From  Cicero’s  time  on,  the  Romans  rendered  axq- 
fxaTa  t rj ^ Xltswc  and  ax^uaxa  tqc  8iotvofot£  by  "figurae  verborum  et  sen- 
tent  iarum"  or  "figurae  elocutionum  et  sentent iarum.  Fesides  the  expressions 

****************************** 

^Cicero  is  here  considered  as  the  author  of  the  Rhetorics  ad  Heren- 
ni urn, though  Cornificius  is  sometimes  thought  to  have  written  it  about  SO 
F.C.  Cicero’s  other  rhetorical  works  are:  De  Invent ione, Orator, De  Oratore, 
Frutus,De  Optimo  Genere  Oratorum,Part it iones  Oratoriae,Topica,  Epis.  ad 
Frutuge,2.2,  ad  Att.,  9*4;  9.9. 

Institutio  Orstoria. 

Orat. , 56*  32. 

^ Ibid. , p4. 131. 

Topics, 3.34.  Fesides  concinnitas,  5estus,  forma  the  following  words 
are  ueed  by  Cicero  to  mean  ax^uatoc  lumina, De  Orat., 5. 57. 119; Ac8d.Fr. , 8.43» 
insignia, ibid. ,5.9. 3*; ornaments,  Orat. ,54.31;  exornatio,Ad  Her. , 5. I2. IS; 
flores,De  Orst. , 3. 5^.9^. 


■ 


• ■ 


* 

of  the  writers  mentioned^,  Cicero  used  the  following:  "ornamentis  et  ver- 

i 2 2 

fcorum  et  senten'fcisrum”,  ”verborum  et  sentent iarum. • • luirina”  , "in  verto- 

4 

rum  et  in  sentent iarum  exornat lone®  ” . Quintilian  uses  the  same  terns:  ”f  i- 

5 

gura  sententiae  plures  habere  verborum  figures  potest”  , end  "ouaeda®  ver- 

* 

borum  figurae  paulum  fi^uris  sentent i3ru*  decl inantur Lster  writers  fol- 
low. So  Aquila  Fomanus:  ”fiAuraru®  aliae  sunt  sent ent iarum,  quae  Siavofa^ 

7 

ax^jiotta  appellant,  aliae  elocutionis,  quae  XeEe <*>c  jy^fiotTot  vocantur”  ; and 

Donatus:  Schemata  lexeos  sunt  et  dianoeas,  id  est  fi^urae  verborum  et  sen- 

tentiaru®,  sed  schemata  dianoeas  ad  cratores  pertinent,  ad  grammat icos 
8 

lexeos. " 

The  difficulty  of  drawing  a strict  dividing  line  between  tropes  and 
figures  was  already  recognized  by  Quintilian',  who  nevertheless  complains 

^Aquila  Fomanus, H.L.M. , 22. 2, nomina  fi^urarum;  22. f i£ uras  sententi- 
arum  atque  elocut  ionutc;  22.p:,7,8;  2*?  .11  et  passim.  Foethius,  Comment  at  io, 
Orel. , Vol.5, pt. 1, p. 334. 33, f i^uras  loquendi;  Donat., Ars  Gram.,2. 4 (Keil,4. 
397.7), f i5urae  verborum  et  sentent i arum. 

^Orat. , 24.81. 

Frut., 79.273. 

^ Ad  Her. ,4.17. 18. 

,9.1.1*. 

^9. 7.38.  Cf.  also,7. 1.40;9. 2. 1;9.3. *2;9. ?.97; 11.  ^.4^11.^.  17?. 

P.L. V. , 23.5. 

'"Ars  Gram.,2. 4 (Kei  1 , 4.  297. p ). 

9 

Inst.  Orat.;  ”Cuin  adec  similitudo  manifests  est,ut  ea  discernere 
non  sit  in  promptu,nam  quo  modo  quaedam  in  his  species  plane  distant,  ®a- 
nente  tamen  generaliter  ilia  societat e, quod  utraque  res  de  recta  et  simpli- 
ci  ratione  cum  aliqua  dicendi  virtute  deflectitur:  ita  quaedam  perquam  te- 
nui  limite  dividuntur,  ut  cure  ironia  tarn  inter  fi^uras  sententiae  qua®  in- 
ter propos  reperiatur",9. 1. 2; ”• . . circa  ouem  (tropum)  inexplicabilis  et 
^rammaticis  inter  ipsos  et  philosophis  puAna  est ”,  idem, 3. 6. 1; ”Est  sutem 
non  mediocris  inter  auctores  dissensio...  quid  accipere  debeamus  fi^uram", 
idem, 9. 1.10.  Cf.  Kleutgen, Ars  Dicendi, p. 89  f. ;Foethius, Commentatic,Orel. 
Vol.f , pt. 1, p. 224; Hermann, Opus. Acad., 1. 10 2. 


. . 


: „ 


7 


of  the  carelessness  of  some  of  his  contemporaries  . It  is  likewise  in 

Quintilian  that  we  obtain  the  first  clear  cut  distinction  between  tropes, 

verbal  figures,  and  figures  of  thought.  He  says:  "Enimvero  iam  maiore  cura 

doceat  tropes  orrines,  quibus  praecipue  non  poema  modo  sed  etiam  oratio  or- 

natur,  schemata  utraque,  id  est  figuras,  quaeque  ouaeaue  6 i avo fac 

2 

voeantur.  " Later  writers  incorporate  it  into  their  works.  So  Fortunanti- 
anus:  "Genera  figurarum  auot  sunt?  trie:  XiBeux;,  X<5  you,  6 tavoTocc . Quae  eo- 
ruui  differentia  est?  quod  Xl^eco;  in  singulis  verbis  fiunt,  ut  nuda  genu, 
...  X<5you  vero  in  elocutionis  composit ionibus,  auae  plnribus  modis  fiunt; 
5t  xvofou;  autem  in  sensibus:  quibus  etia*  sive  locutione®  mutaveris  aut 
verborum  ordinem  inverteris,  eaedem  tairen  figurae  permaneant,  verum  utra- 
aue  Xll-ewc  et  Xoyou  non  its.”  Victorious:  "Omnia  enim  ornaments  elocuti- 
onis, id  est,  figurse,  quae  sunt  aut  5t cxvofotc  sut 

4 

aut  axwonot  X<5you.”  This  became  the  accepted  division  down  to  our  own 
time.  And  so  throughout  these  pages  a trope  will  t*3  considered  "an  expres- 
sion turned  from  its  natural  and  principal  signification  to  another,  for 

R 

the  purpose  of  adorning  style"  , as  distinguished  from  a figure  of  speech, 

+ *****!([***  + ******#. ******************** 

Inst.0rat.,9. 1. 2,  "...  nec  desunt  qui  tropis  figurarum  nomen  impc- 

nant . " 

2 

Inst.Orat. , 1. 9. 1^.  Cf.  also  ibid. , 7.  3. 40:  "Cuomodo  inveniemus  illas 
occultiones  quaestiones?  scilicet  quomodo  sententias  verba, f i guras  colo- 
res." Ibid. , 10. 1. *50:  "Quid?  in  verbis, sententiis, f iguris, dispositione  tc- 
tius  operis,  nonne  humani  ingenii  mcdum  excedit?"  Ibid. , 9. 7. 2:  "Verum 
schemata  XlSewc  duorum  sunt  generum:  alterum  loquendi  rationem  voeant,al- 
teruic  maxime  collocatiore  exquisitum  est.  Quorum  tametsi  utrumque  conveni’t 
orat  ioni,  t amen  possis  illud  gratcmat icum,  hoe  rhetoricum  magis  dicere." 

R.  L. V. , 15*. 24. 

^P.L.V.,271.22  ff. 

Quint. , Inst. Orat. , 9. 1.4.  Cf.  also  ifcid.,”ut  plerique  grammat ici  fi- 
niunt,dietio  ab  eo  loco,  in  quo  propria  est, translate  sd  eum,in  auo  propria 
non  est."  Ven.Eede,R.L. V. , ^07. 


- • 


■ 


* • * . 


*>  * 

« 


3 


Which  will  be  considered  an  artificial  arrangement  of  words  or  clauses  for 
Greater  effect,  while  a figure  of  thought  will  be  considered  a "form  of 
speech  differing  from  the  common  and  ordinary  mode  of  expression".^  Conse- 
quently tropes  and  figures  of  speech  concern  themselves  only  with  words  and 
their  arrangement,  while  figures  cf  thought  are  affairs  of  whole  clauses 
and  sentences. 


There  will  not  be  any  need  of  mentioning  the  purpose  of  figures.  They 
are  as  old  as  mankind.  Tbst  is  the  test  proof  that  their  purpose  was  well 
understood  and  their  effect  well  known.  Still  let  us  quote  but  one  passage 
froai  Cicero.  He  says:  "Sx^paxot  enim  auae  vocant  Graeci,  ea  maxime  ornant 


oratorem  eaque  non  tarn  in  verbis  pingendis  hateot  pondus  auam  in  illumi- 
nandis  sentent i is. " 


Let  us  now  pass  on  to  the  terms  used  to  express  the  idea  conveyed  by 

55  4 

Cicero’s  definition  "appetitio  ccgnit ioni s".  They  are  respectively  : epo?- 
interrogat  io,  interrogat  ura,  interrogation,  and  7Tua;jt(X,7reuai  c 


***#*****#***********;************ 

^Quint. , Inst.Orst., 9. 1. 4; ibid. ,9. 1. 10: ".. . proprie  schema  dicitur  in 
sensu  vel  sermone  aliqua  a vulgari  et  simplici  specie  cum  ratione  mirbatis"; 
ibid. ,9. 1. 14, "Ergo  figura  sit  arte  aliqua  novata  forma  dicendi."  Cf.?umpt, 
Gram. ^821. 2*,  and  Ven.  Pede,  F.L.V. , *07. 2. 

^Frut . , 87. 141.  Cf.  also  ibid. , 17. <9; Cuint. ,9. 8. 27;9. ?. 100; Ven.  Pede, 


B.L.Uj,,*07.8-9. 

' Acad.pr. ,8.  2*. 

4 

Cf.  Lexicons  of  Suidas  and  Has.ychius,  also  modern  Greek  and  Latin  lex- 
icons. and  Dtfderlain, Latin  Synonyms. 

* Epc^x  rja  c c and  n suaic,  as  a rule,  mean  the  "act  of  questioning",  an 


V^k'irig",  yet  they  are  also  used  to  denote  the  figure  cf  interrogat  ion. Thus 
Longinus,  te  Sutl  irritate,  18. 1:  "Tl  6'  IxeTva  qtw|j£v,Ta.C  rceuaetc  Te  xal  Ipwxin- 
oeic."Cf.  ^eiske, Longinus,  Ce  Sub. , p.  8?9:  "A  7iu<j'io!Ti  autem  71*001  c non  differt 
nisi  forma,  secundum  ouarr  proprie  quaerendi  actionem  signifieat,  non  ut  hoc- 
loco,  quaesit  urn  ipsum.Sic  et  Ipa'xrpii;  hie  est  IpwTriijta. " Dior. Hal.,  Te  Derr,., 
p4:""[5iov  51  5f|  tiou  ax^uoi  Tieuaewc. . . " 


i 

• . . • » , 

. . t 

' ‘ . . 


. 


9 


1 

qusestio,  quaesitum,  percontat io,  question.  These  terms  can  be  inter- 

2 

changed  without  doing  then  any  violence  as  to  their  meaning.  They  have 

teen  considered  synonymous  both  by  ancient  and  modern  rhetoricians  and  lex- 

? 

icograpbere  s Though  the  Greek  rhetoricians  made  a distinction  between 
£pwT7)|iO(  and  nvo\io , the  distinction  is  tut  a technical  one. 

Now, when  thr  terms  mentioned  in  the  preceding  paragraph  are  used  in 
those  sentences  of  ordinary  conversation,  whose  "finis"  is  "invent io,f , they 
are  pure  and  simple  questions,  hut  when  applied  to  the  same  kina  of  senten- 
ces used  ty  an  orator,  they  lose  their  purpose  and  become  lpwT%iaTa  and 
ttuajiaTa  j$7)Topixa,  i.e.  rhetorical  questions.  Fut  this  is  to  be  discussed 
in  the  following  chapter. 

*Just  as  the  term  "quest  ion ",  so  also  quaestic,  interrogat  io,7iujfia  and 
IpwTpfia  can  have  many  other  meani  Igs  besides  that  of  "interrogation The 
most  common  of  these  8re  inquiry, argument , point  of  dif f iculty, syl logism, 
investigation, and  such  like.  Cf.  Greek  and  Latin  Lexicons; Cic. , Fe  Nat. Tecs, 
1.1. 1: "Perdifficilis...  et  perotscura  quaestic  est  de  nature  decrum idem, 
Acad. Pr. , 2^.8*: "... de  quo  haec  tota  quaestic"; idem, Fe  Invent., 1.6.8: "... 
oratoris  materiam  in  causarn  et  in  quaestionem  dividat...  cuaestionem  autem 
earn  appellet , quae  h8teat  in  se  eontroversi an  in  dicendo  positam  sine  cer- 
taruri)  personarum  int  erposit  ione";  Sen. , Epi  s. , 87. 11:  "Nunc  vole  paueissimas 
adbuc  interrogat iones  nbstrorum  tibi  reddere, " then  he  continues  with  this 
syllogism  as  an  exam-pie:  "Quod  tonum  est,  f acit;  ram  et  in  arte  musics  quod 
benum  est, fecit  musicum: fortuits  bonum  non  f aciunt: ergo  non  sunt  bona"; 
Cic., Pro  Cl uent . , p3. lp9: "res  ir  quaestione  versetur."  Cf.  also  idem, Acad. 
Post. ^2.p; Acad.Pr. , *6. 1 17; De  Fato, l2. 29* 

“Cf.  Quint., Inst. Orat. ,9. 2.6: "Quid  enim  tarn  commune  quam  interrogsre 
vel  percent arij  ham  utroque  utimur  indif f erent er,  quamquam  alterum  noscen- 
di, alterum  srguendi  gratis  videtur  adhiteri.  At  es  res, ut rccumcue  dicitur 
modo,  etiam  multiplex  babetur  schema." 

vSee  notes  * and  4 on  p.8,  and  the  definitions  of  spwTrjua  and  ttuctuoi 
in  the  following  chapter. 


‘ 


(• 


■ 

10 


II.  RHETORICAL  OUFSTION  EFFI NEC. 


If  we  turn  to  the  grammars  for  information  concerning  rhetorical 
questions  the  following  are  some  of  the  definitions  found:  Pale  end  Puck: J 
"Questions  that  really  do  not  8sk  for  information,  but  are  only  stronger 
ways  of  declaring  something  are  celled  Rhetorical  Quest  ions; quis  dutitet? 
who  would  doubt?  ( = nobody  would  doubt);  quid  prodest?  what  is  the  use? 

( = there  is  no  use);"  Parkness  : "A  question  used  for  rhetorical  effect 
in  place  of  an  assertion  is  called  a Rhetorical  Question;  as  num  potest? 
can  he?  = non  potest,  he  can  not";  Bennett  : "Questions  are  sometimes  such 

merely  in  form,  being  employed  to  express  emphatic  assertion;  as  quis 

4 

dubitet?  who  doubts?  (no  one  doubts);"  Adair-Gould  : "Interrogation  (Greek 
Eretesis)  is  a figure  whereby  we  do  net  simply  ask  a question,  but  express 
some  strong  feeling  or  affection  of  the  mind  in  that  form;  Quid  ergo?  su- 
dacissimus  ego  ex  omnibus?;  Andrews  and  Gtoddard  : Ep^irp i q is  an  earnest 

question,  and  often  implies  s strong  affirmation  of  the  contrary,  as  ere- 
ditis  avectos  b.ostes?";  Sloman  ; "Fhetorieal  Questions  expect  no  answer 
and  are  only  statements  in  disguise;  quid  est  levius  aut  turpius?  what  is 

***************************** 

1 

^Latin  Granu,22p. 

* A Latin  Gram. , p,52. 1 1.  £.  footnote  5. 

7 

'A  New  Latin  Gran n ar, 1*2. 2. 

4 

Lat.  Gram. , Appendix  to  Synt  ax, p.  2. 

R 

.A  Grammar  of  the  Latin  Language,  R54. 21. 

A Grammar  of  Classical  Latin, p4?.fc. 


11 

rtore  unprincipled  or  shameful?  ( = nihil  est  levius,  etc.).  Lane\vadvig\ 

1 1 

Roby  , and  7uirpt  jo  not  so  much  as  give  a definition  of  a rhetorical  ques- 

2 

tion.  Gil dersl eeve-Lodge  in  a footnote  remarks  that  "the  form  of  question 
is  often  used  to  imply  a negative  opinion  on  the  part  of  the  speaker:  Quid 
interest  inter  periurum  et  mendac-em?  Mat  is  the  difference  between  a per- 
jured man  and  a liar?”  Of  course  Lane,  Vadvig,  Roby,  Zumpt,  and  Gilder- 
sleevr-Lodge  in  treating  of  the  noods  end  their  subdivisions  do  mention  in 
some  instances,  either  directly  or  indirectly,  if  questions  that  come  un- 

7 

der  such  subdivisions  are  also  used  rhetorically.  Schmalz  in  the  chapter 
cn  questions  says:  "Many  questions  ere  such  only  in  form,  but  in  reality 
they  contain  an  assertion,  an  exhortation,  a wish  or  a command.  These  are 
usually  called  rhetorical  questions."  KQhner’s  "Ausf flbrliche  Grammatik  der 
Lateinischen  Sprache",  which  undoubtedly  ranks  among  the  test,  does  not 
offer  a definition  of  rhetorical  question. 

In  examining  the  foregoing  definitions  we  notice  that  all  of  then 
agree  more  or  less  distinctly  that  a rhetorical  question  is  in  reality 
something  else  than  a question,  preferably  a statement  in  the  guise  of  s 
question.  With  such  brief  remarks  the  subject,  is  disnissed.  Nothing  or 
very  little  is  said  as  to  the  use  of  the  rhetorical  questions  in  the  vari- 
ous departments  of  literature  and  whether  a Question  that  is  rhetorical  in 

*****************  ***************  # * * * 

*The  work  of  each  is  entitled  Latin  Grammar. 

2 

_ Latin  Gramn ar, 4R 1. b.P. 2. 

Syntax  und  St  i 1 i st  ic,  210:  Manche  Fragesgtze  sind.  nur  der  Form  nach 
Fragen,  enthalten  aber  tstsgchlich  eine  Fefcauptung,  eine  Auffcrderung, ei ce 
Wunsch,einen  Fefetl.  Seiche  FragesStze  nennt  man  in  allgeneir.en  rhetcris- 
che  Frage. 


i: 


One  department  is  also  rhetorical  in  any  other  department.* 

Let  us  then  turn  to  1 he  ancient  rhetoricians.  We  find  that  they  al- 
ways aake  a distinction  between  a question,  which  csn  be  answered  by  a 
simple  affirmation  or  negation  and  one  that  requires  an  extended  explana- 
tory answer.  The  former  they  call  spwxrpua  and  the  latter  ntfaua.  So  Alexan- 
der distinguishes  them:  * EjduIt  r^ju  it  loti,  n pb-c  6 avdtyxr]  anoxp  Ivxabou  xax’ 
andyaa tv  fj  vaT^'j/aaiv  ouxv,  vcxi  r)  oCf  olov  ! ErjX&ec  Ini  xljv  u5yviqv  r)  ou;  ... 

&vayxr)  Y®P  xal  ttoo  <;  xouxo  rj  val  f(  ou  aTiOxp  f\aa0a  i . Iluaua  51  Ian,  npo;  o 
5 1 elEoS  i -kwc  anavTriacxt  Set  xal  5 la  nXsidvot-v,  wc  e'xe-i  to  xoiouxov,  eue  of,  <T> 
TpiToywvtaTa,  x6  xfvo;  <pp<5vr|ua  XaSovxa  xouxota  a uiiSouXedetv  e5si;  Ivxau^a 
yap  oux  sax  t v anoxp  f vaaBai  val  rjou,  aXXa  5ia  nXatdvwv  avayxr]  J.navxav  x<5 
toi  ouxdv  Ipouvn.  A similar  distinction  is  made  by  GonsEue.,  '.EpwTrjjaa,  ob 
auvxo.uop  r,  ano'xptatc,  5i«  tou  val  f)  too  ou  npoywoouj  , * c to  c’  ~ f st 
natSsfav,  ou  5f5wp  xf;  xaxfqi  x^P^v;  Iluapa,  ou  rj  anoxpuip  paxpa  xal  5ieEo- 

* ' * ' ‘ ,v 

6 t x^T‘  c Xeyouevr],  to  Ini  no  to  $ xot  yap.  ixiov;  xal  xfvap  qpuXaxxf  ov;  Joan- 

nes Pjhiloponus  says:  Aiaqpfpei  fj  5ta  Xe,xxx7)  Ipwxrjaic  xrjc  nuauax  t x~|p , ox  i 

1 • 1 

It  may  be  objected  that  the  treatment  of  rhetorical  figures  does  net 
belong  to  grammar  but  to  .rhetoric.  Put  if  we  bear  it  uind  that  the  ancient 
political  orators,  both.  Greek  and  Rod  an,  were  exceedingly  more  fena  of 
figures  than  orators  of  our  tine  and  that  8 treatise  on  modern  rhetoric- 
does  net  touch  upon  their  notion  of  then,  we  night  rightly  expect  a fuller 
treatment  of  them  in  our  Latin  Grammars. 

r 

^Spengel,  Rbetores  Graeci,  ?. 24.511  ff. 

"Ibid. , ff. 

'Ibid.,  2.1*G.S4  ff.  Cf.  Perodian,  lb  id. , 9*.  24  ff.  ’EpcAxriatc  H 

lax  t Xoyoc  lv  unoxpfaEt  Xeyoysvac  Ini  x£  aaqpeaxepov  yvwvat ' x't  xGv  Ifutfj- 
T.ouiisvwv , wc  7i a. pa  ’insofar;,  SoxeTc  yap  .auxov  slnstv; 


. 


/ ■*'  ' ■ 


t 


• i s 

^ -t 

13 

Tip  o i uIvt'jv  5 i uXext  i kljv  Ipkt7]aiv  apx.Et  fj  to  vaf  fj  to  ou  inonp  (vnobai , oTov 
n <5 T Epov  f)  ^uyf]  &9<Sv<xtoc;  npbc  touto  Ixavov  fj  to  vat  fj  to  ou.  17 pb c Ta ; 

TiuajjLOiT  t xa;  nXefovoc  Set  Xdyov,  oTov;  (Odyss.,  a.'  170)  Ttc;  nd0£v  eJ<;  a v 5 piv, 
nd&t  toi  TidXi<;  riot  Toxrjs^;  au  TruauaTixf]  f)  IpooTrjai  <;,  -7i  p o c Hv  7iXe  tdvuv  5e7 
X<5ywv  Tuj  5moxp  t vojil  vu),  l7t<Sye  t youv  (Odyss.,  i\  39)  'lXtd6ev  us  cpgpuv  5ve- 
JJLO  C K IX  dvECTO  l 7I£X3<aO£V. 

The  Roman  rhetoricians  nake  the  sane  distinction  as  the  Greeks. Aquila 
Poiranus  explains  and  exemplifies  them  thus:  * Epu>TT]uaf  i nt errogatun . He 
utimur,  ufci  exacertande  aliauid  interred  an  us  et  augeaus  eius  invidian,  hoc 
modo:  Fuistine  i 1 1 0 in  loco?  dixistine,  haec  its  gesta  esse?  rer.unt  iastne 
68,  quitirs  decepti  sumus?  Haec  enim  si  sine  interred  at ione  dicantur  ad 
• hunc  modun:  ’hie  fuit  i 3 1 0 in  loco  et  its  gesta  esse  dixit  et  falsa  renun- 

r 

tiardo  nos  decepit, * sic  prclsta  minus  invidiose  proferentur.  Huaua , auae- 
situn.  Hoc  genus  a superiore  to  differt,  auod  ad  int errogatun  ura  vcce 
tantuni  responderi  potest,  vel  a confitente:  ouaesito  auten  oecurri  nisi 

1 

In  Friora  Analytics, p.7.  Cf . alsc  Sextus  Empiricus,  ed.  Fstricius, 
Vol.l,pp.89  and  90;  Aimonius, F3;  Anon., Spengel,Bbet.  Orsec-i,  7. 179.  2C  ff.; 
Phoefcan.mcn,  Spengel,  Fbet • Graeei,  3.  53* A ff*  Theon  says:  fitaqpips  iSSItou  thjj- 
(xcxto;  ft  IpdSTrjjt  q,  oti  7ipb ^ plv  tt]v  ipo5T7)aiv  <ruyxo(Ta0la0o<  t 5 e T udvov  fj 
&pvifyjota0o<i,  oTov  avav£ucra  1 fj  xaTaveuaoa , fj  5ia  ye  tou  va \ fj  ou  liTroxpfva- 
a0ou.,  to  5b  nuaua  uaxpoTlpav  ot7tcx t t e T Tf)v  oaroxptatv.  Spengel,  Phet.  Grseci, 
2. 97. 2*  ff.  Diog.Leert  ius:  ' EpwTTyua  5£  lent  Tip5y.ua  0(utotsX£<;  ulv,  uq  xal 
to  aPfwua,  aWrjTtxbv  5b  omoxp fasw^,  oTov  "A pa  ye  fulpa  EJTf;  touto  51  oute 
aXrjBep  Ijtiv  outs  i})£u8oc,  waTe  to  ubv  *Hueoa  Ijtiv  affwua  Ijti,to  5b  *Apa 
y£  fjulpa  laTtv;  IpcoTriua.  Huoua  51  Ijt  1 Tipayiia  -no  b c 0 ouuSoXtxu;  oux  Iotiv 
otTtoxp  fv£j0at , d)c  !tt\  t ou " s pwT  /yuaT  0 ( , Fa.f,  aXXa.  e’itisTv,  oiXeT  Iv  t<£6£  toth*. 

2 

Ec  figuris  Sententiae  et  Elocutionis,  P;L. tt; , 25, 19  ff« 


14 


plurifcus  non  pctest,  ut  hoc  modo  si  dices:  Cue  igitur  ratione  tellun  gere- 
(tus?  ouae  suxili8  nobis  paret8  erur:t?  quis  erit  aui  subvenire  velit,  cun 
tare  acerbe  socio?  tract  averin  us?  The  definitions  of  Vertianus  Capelle  of- 
fer no  difference.  *Ep(2Trj|iot  est  interrogate,  oua  figure  utimur,  cue  inter- 
rogandc  aliauid  aeertanus  et  exaggerauus  eios  invidiam.  II ucrjuia  est  quaesi- 
tum,  quae  figura  a superiore  eo  differt,  ouod  interrogate  una  voce  tantun 
responderi  potest,  ouaesito  autei  nisi  pluribus  responderi  non  potent,  ut 
cum  dicinus:  Qua  igitur  ratione  bellu*  gerenus?  auae  auxilia,  etc.  ut 

, C' 

supra.  Quintilian,  too,  favored  such  s distinction  in  theory  at  least  if 
not,  in  practice.  He  says:  "Quid  enim  tarn  commune  quan  interregare  vel  ( er- 

7 

contari?  nam  utroque  utimur  indifferenter,  quanouan  alterum  noscendi,  al- 
terum  arguendi  gratia  videtur  sdhiberi. 

These,  then,  are  some  of  the  definitions  and  examples  of  rhetorical 
Questions  handed  down  to  us  by  the  early  rhetoricians.  Vcre  citations 
would  not  add  anything  new  to  these  already  quoted.  Fere  again  we  are  con- 
fronted by  a difficulty,  for  the  nature  and  use  of  the  figure,  is  hardly 
made  any  clearer  by  stating  that  the  expected  answer  is  either  long  or 

short.  Fhet,  then,  is  a rhetorical  Question?  Is  the  term  to  be  used  in  a 

******  ************************ 

*Itid.,P.L.M., 2P.2*  ff. 

Pe  Rhetorics, R.L.W. ,478. 11  ff.  For  sone  unknown  reason  the  author  of 
the  Schemata  Piaroess  reverses  the  accepted  distinction.  ‘Epdvrj^a  est  in- 
terrogate, ut  i eliquid  interrogando  exscertamus  et  sngemus  rei  invidian, 
hoc  modo:  Fuisti  spud  Laec8n  - dixisti.auo  quemque  proficisci  plsceret? 

Haec  si  sine  interrogations  dicantur,  mi  .,s  invidiose  proferentur. 
est  percental io,  ubi  tantun  una  voce  vel  a negante  vel  a ccnfitente  re- 
spondetur,  ut  Terentius:  QLuid  meritu's?  crucem.  In  superiors  vero  figure 
pluritus  respondents.  R.L-H. , 7^. 27  ff, 

"'Interrogat urn  and  percontatum  are  the  Latin  for  ipu>Tr(iucx  and  nujua. 
"Inst.  Orat. , 9-2 , *. . 


; 


>■ 


. ' . . : • 


•*  i 


■ 


s 


• % • • • " t 

■ 

. . ' > ' ’ ; 


• ■ 


■ , • 


ui 

>■  i 


1* 

narrow  sense  end  fce  applicable  only  to  those  questions,  which  ere  virtu- 
ally equivalent  to  8 sweeping  negation,  of  which  "Cue  quid  potest  e.sse 
1 , 

gracius?"  "What  (testimony)  can  be  nore  weighty  than  that?"  ( = "Mo  testi- 
mony can  have  greater  weight."),  is  a typical  example?  Or  is  its  applica- 
tion to  be  so  extended  as  to  include  all  questions,  that  evidently  do  not 
expect  an  answer  or  in  other  words  do  not  ask  for  information?  Either  of 
these  two  interpretations  is  acceptable.  Adherence  to  the  one  or  the  other 
is  simply  a matter  of  personal  taste.  Kter  studying  several  times  the 
questions  in  the  Philippics,  I was  induced  to  follow  the  broader  interpre- 
tation. The  reasons  that  led  me  to  this  conclusion  will  be  explained  later, 
If  one  should  accept  the  term  in  its  narrow  meaning  he  could  easily  select 
the  questions  that  are  rhetorical  and  were  meant  to  be  such  by  Cicero.  fit 

the  sao;e  time  he  would  find  that  almost  all  of  them  would  be  cf  the  "Cuo 

1 

quid  potest  esse  gravius?"  type  or  closely  akin  to  it,  in  the  indicative 

r* 

and  of  the  "Cuid  enim  aliud  dicam?"^  type  in  the  subjunctive.  Following 
this  view  I found  that  there  are  in  the  Philippics  only  two  hundred  forty- 
seven  rhetorical  questions  in  the  indicative  and  ei*hty-eight  in  the  sub- 
junctive. 

The  narrow  interpretation  of  the  figure  cf  interrogation 'woul d be  the 
easier  way  of  disposing  cf  the  difficulty.  Fut  after  a .careful  study  cf 
the  questions  we  cannot  but  suspect  that  the  nsrrow  interpretation  has 
its  difficulties  and  the  question  arises  in  our  mind,  why  did  Cicero  use 
the  other  six  hundred  one  questions?  Tihat  is  their  purpose?  Tie  know  the 
purpose  of  a ra3l  auestion  is  to  ask  for  information;  "auaestio  est  sppe- 
titic  ccgnitionis,  quaest ionisque  finis  inventio. " £nd  no  elaborate  argu- 


1 


1.4.10. 


Cic. , ^cad.Fr. , 3. 2*. 


2.21.77. 


* 


. 


: 


' 


< v 


- -1 


ments  are  necessary  to  convince  as  that  the  orator  in  his  speech  proper 
does  not  and  ought  rot  ask  for  information.  Such  a procedure  would  do 
hern  to  his  position.  Then  it  is  too  late  to  search  for  material  on  which 
to  base  his  arguments.  Pe  faces  the  audience  with  the  intention  of  in- 
structing it  or  convincing  it  of  the  truth  and  justice  of  the  cause  he  ad- 
vocates. Pe  must  always  have  the  8ir  of  one  who  has  a firm  grasp  of  his 
subject  8nd  is  master  of  the  situation.  Pow  can  Questioning  for  informa- 
tion be  consistent  with  an  orator’s  position? 

Let  us  suppose  that  the  orator  does  ask  for  information,  of  whom  can 
he  ask  it?  Since  the  assembly  is  divided  into  two,  the  speaker  and  the 
hearers,  the  questions  are  necessarily  directed  to  one  of  them.  According 
to  the  Athenian  law  the  speaker  addressing  the  court  might  interrogate  the 
edversary  and  demand  a reply,  while  be  himself  could  net  be  interrupted  by 

r 

him.  "Such  interrogations, ” writes  Sandys,  "judging  from  the  few  speci- 
mens that  have  come  down  to  as,  were  of  the  simplest  kind;  and  owing  to 
the  large  number  and  th  natural  impatience  cf  the  audience  present,  any- 
thing approaching  an  elaborate  cross-examination  was  quite  out  of  the 
z 

Question."  These  cross-examinations  as  a whole  cannot  be  considered  rhet- 
orical questions  and  I cannot  say  for  certain  whether  there  is  sc  much  as 

one  instance  in  Roman  oratory,  where  the  interrogation  and  answer,  if  at 

**#***•*********:*********♦***** 

1 

Cf.  luint.,Inst.  Orat.,5.7.7,  Is  verissime  praecepit  primum  esse  in 
hac  parte  officium  oratoris,  ut  totau  causam  familiariter  norit,  quod  sine 
dutic^ad  omnia  pertinet. 

Cf.  Kennedy,  Demosthenes, Vol. 4, Appendix  7,  On  Interrogatories. 

"Cope,  Aristotle’s  Phetoric,  ed.  Ssndys,  Vol.  3,  p.  711.  For  Aristotle’s 
testiment  of  such  interrogation  see  his  Rhetoric, 13. 1.  For  instances  see 
Isaeus, 10 . 4-p;  Lysias, 22. 3; 13. 7C-37; 10. 2P. 


‘ 


= , 


17 

all  enployed,  was  incorporated  into  the  oration.  In  the  Philippics  there 


8re  no  indications  that  Cicero  Questioned  sone  one  with  the  intention  of 

b til & 

obtaining  a reply,  and  if  he  didAnot  consider  it  a part  of  his  oration. 
Since  we  do  not  find  any  of  such  instances  we  nay  dismiss  this  pert  of  the 
quest  ion. 

The  other  person  to  when  the  questions  can  be  directed  is  the  orator 


hiuself.*"  Cicero  does  this  in  sorre  instances.  Fut  infornation  is  not  sough 
for  he  could  net  answer  what  he  did  not  know.  Fe  only  pretended  ignorance 

A 

in  order  to  heighten  the  effect  or  to  anticipate  the  difficulties  that 
flight  arise  in  the  ninds  of  the  audience,  as 

7 

Guos  e^o  ornc?  Nenope  eos  qui  ipsi  sunt  ornament  a rei  publicse. 

Cur  igitur  pacerc  nolo?  Quia  turpis  est,  auia  periculcsa,  ouis 

4 

esse  non  potest. 


rCf.  Volknann,  Rhet.,pp. 189  and  190. 

Quint., Inst.  Orat. ,9.2. 14,  ...Ceteruc  et  interrog andi  se  ip sua  et 
respondendi  sibi  sclent  esse  non  ingratae  vices.  Cf.  Cic. , Orat • , 40. .1*7; 
Longinus,  on  the  Subline,  17C.  The  figure  cf  Question  and  answer  is  called 
u7iocpop $ t subiectio.  Cf.' Tiberius,  Spengel, Fhet .Or. , 3.77.p,  urroc(/opj(  5 i 
Ijitv  otoiv  ql]  i^r\Q  7t p o3 ot f v rj  6 Xoyop  dt X X * vnobsiQ  tt  rj  ti olo\  tPu  ivxt- 
Sfxou  r,  uq  ex  tou  7ip:xy;aaTog  a7ioxp  f vrpta  t npop  autov,  ubnep  8uo  &vt  t Xeyutis vot 
Tiodjcona  fiiuouiievcp.  £d  Her. ,4.1?. 33*  subiectio  est,  cun  interrogsn  us  ad- 
versaries aut  auaeriaus  ipsi  a nobis.  Quid  sb  illis  aut  quid  contra  nos 
dici  possit,  aeinde  subiciflus  id,  auod  oportet  dici,  etc.  See  also  Ibid., 
9.16.23;  Quint., Inst.  Orat., 9. 2.12;  ,.5.15;  9. 2.40; -Herniog.,  Spengel, Rhet. 
3r. , 2. 4*4. 2*.  Fort  unantianus,  R.L.M.:,  18.  3;  Ernest , Lexicon  Technologist 
Latinorua  Fbetor icae, p. z77  under  subiectio;  Cic.,  De  Orat.,  3.53;  Longinus 
On  the  Sutline,  13. 

"11. 14. 3^. 

47  ^ o 


')  ' 


■ 


-T. 


* 

‘ " «,  ' . • 


. ; : , ■ 


!'  . 


18 


Since  the  question  together  withjtbe  answer  ferns  the  figure^he  Question 
itself  cannc't  properly  be  considered  rhetorical.  Their  number  is  snail 
and  they  have  not  teen  counted  with  the  rhetorical  Questions.  Thus  far  we 
have  seen  that  inform at  ion,  the  reel  object  of  questions,  is  not  sought  by 
the  Questions  in  the  Philippics,  which  only  tends  to  stow  that  the  broader 
interpretation  of  the  term  rhetorical  question  is  the  better. 

Secondly  we  know  that  there  is  an  essential  difference  in  purpose  be- 
tween an  ofation  and  a dialogue  or  conversation.  Consequently  there  is 
also  a difference  between  the  purpose  of  a auestion  used  in  an  oration  and 
one  used  in  a dialogue  or  ordinary  conversation.  In  an  oration  the  ques- 
tion has  not  the  "appetitic  cognitionis  " and  hence  it  loses  its  purpose, 
for  "qusesticnis  finis  inventio."  £s  was  ssid  before,  the  time  of  delivery 
of  an  oration  is  not  the  occasion  to  ask  for  information  cr  to  hold  a con- 
versation. This  consideration,  applicable  to  nearly  all  questions  in  the 
Philippics,  induces  us  strongly  to  adopt  the  rhetorical  question  as  under- 
stood in  its  wider  sense. 

Lastly  the  purpose  of  a question  is  the  fundamental  reason  for  the 
distinction  between  a real  and  a rhetorical  question.  P rhetorical  ques- 
tion is  susceptible  of  many  varieties,  as  Quintilian  states:  "at  es  res, 

r 

/ 

utrocum.que  dicitur  modo,  etianr,  multiplex  hsbet  schema."  Then  he  goes  on 

to  mention  a variety  of  purposes  for  which  a rhetorical  question  can  be 

2 

employed.  $e  cannot  do  better  than  to  quote  the  entire  passage.  "It  is  a 

****************************** 

*Cf.  Straub, Ee  Tropis  et  Figuri s, p. 94. 

r 

^Inst.Orat. ,9. 

'Translated  by  Batson. 


-***- 


- 


19 


simple  interrogation  to  ssy: 

'Sed  vos  aui  tandem?  quibus  eat  venistis  at  oris?'^ 

Put  it  is  an  interrogation  with  a figure,  when  it  is  adopted,  not  for  the 
sane  of  seeking  information  tut  in  order  to  attack  the  person  interrogated. 
...We  sometimes  ask  coacerning  what  cannot,  be  denied;  as  'Has  Caius  Fidi- 


answer  is  difficult,  as  we  say  in  conversation,  ’Row?  Row  is  it  possible?' 
Or  to  threw  odium  on  the  person  to  whom  we  address  ourselves,  as  Vede3  says 
in  Seneca,  ’Ouss  peti  terras  iubes?'  Or  to  excite  pity,  as  Sinon  in  Vergil, 


Or  to  press  our  opponent,  and  deprive  hir»  of  all  Ground  for  pretending  not 
to  understand  us,  as  Asinius  Follio  said,  ’Do  you  hear?  We  are  attacking 


the  will  of  a madman,  I say,  not  of  a person  who  merely  failed  in  his  duty. 
It  assists  to  express  indignation: 

4 

...Ft  Quisquam  rumen  Junonis  adoret? 

and  wonder 

...Quid  non  mortal is  pectora  cog  is 


d- 

culanius  Falcula,  I pray,  been  brought  to  judgment?'  Or  when  to  find  an 


'Feu  ouae  me  tellus,  inquit,  quae  me  aequera  possunt 


2 


Accipere? 


Auri  sacra  fames? 


Sometimes  it  is  a more  spirited  form  of  command,  as 


Ron  arms  expedient,  teteque  ex  urbe  sequentur? 


Sometimes  we  ask  ourselves,  as  in  Terence; 


*****************  ************* 


4 


pAen. , 1. 40. 
' Aen. . 2. 


Mi' 


■ V 

M - ; 


< 


;•) 


. 


*■  « * 

■ . 

• • f 

• 

. 


- . ' .... 


- • V- 


* ♦ • 


. 


20 


Quid  igitur  faciam? 

Interrogation  is  also  made  by  comparison,  as  'Which  of  the  two,  then,  will 

r 

more  easily  give  a reason  for  his  opinion?*  " So  far  Quintilian,  After 

mentioning  these  eleven  usages  of  the  rhetorical  ouestion,  he  distinctly 

states  that  its  purposes  are  not  thereby  exhausted:  "Et  aliis  modis  turn 

2 

brevius  turn  latius,  turn  de  uns  re  turn  de  pluribus.  " 

If  we  bear  in  mind  that  Quintilian  makes  figures  less  numerous  and 
narrower  in  their  application  than  Cicero  and  some  other  writers,  end 
ag8in  if  we  bear  in  mind  the  many  purposes  and  possibilities  of  the  figure 
of  interrogation  he  mentions,  we  cannot  but  accept  that  the  figure  of  in- 
terrogation was  very  common  and  its  application  broad,  Quintilian  himself 

F 

says  it  is  the  most  common  of  figures.  Other  rhetoricians,  also,  assign 

many  purposes  to  this  figure,  Longinus  says:  "Put  what  are  we  next  to  ssy 

of  questions  and  interrogations?  Is  it  not  precisely  by  the  visualizing 

dualities  of  these  figures  that  Demosthenes  strives  to  make  his  speeches 

far  more  effective  and  impressive?  ...  *let  us  sail  against  Vacedonia. 

Where  shall  we  find  a landing  place?  some  one  asks.  The  war  itself  will 

7 

discover  the  weak  places  in  Philip's  position, * £11  this,  if  stated  plain- 

ly and  directly,  would  have  been  altogether  weaker,  As  it  is,  the  excite- 

******#**************:([****#*** 

Hun,,  1.1.1. 

^T-ro  Cloent,,  38.10*. 

'Inst.0ret.,9. 2. 1*. 

Ilnst.Orst., 9. 1.10-14;  9. 2. 1-15;  9.3.100. 

8 

Q 2 * 

* ' 

Dionysius  of  Halicarnassus  confirms  this,”...  et,  cum  interrogat ione, 
quo  modo  Lysius  minime  loauitur  Demosthenes  autem,  aui  at  illc  causas  ac- 
cepit^  creberrirre, " De  Isaeo  Iudicium,13. 

Demos. , Phil, , 1.44, 


. 

• • • 

. 


21 


merit,  and  the  rapid  play  of  question  and  answer,  and  the  plan  of  meeting 
his  own  objections  as  though  they  were  ur^ed  by  another,  have  by  help  of 
the- figure  made  the  language  used  not  only  more  elevated  but  also  more  con- 
vincing. For  an  exhibition  of  passion  has  a greater  effect  when  it  seems 
not  to  be  studied  by  the  speaker  himself  but  inspired  by  the  occasion;,  and 
questions  asked  and  answered  by  oneself  simulate  a natural  outburst  of  pas- 
sion. For  just  as  those  who  are  interrogated  by  others  experience  a sudden 
excitement  and  answer  the  inauiry  incisively  and  with  the  utmost  candor, so 
the  figure  of  question  and  answer  leads  the  hearer  to  suppose  that  each 
deliberate  thought  is  struck  out  and  uttered  on  the  spur  of  the  moment,  and 
so  fcegui'es  his  reason.”  Demetrius  says:  ”[n  speaking  it  is  sometimes 
forcible  to  address  questions  to  the  audience  without  disclosing  one’s  own 
view...  The  orator  forces  his  hearer  into  a sort  of  corner,  so  that  he 
seems  to  be  brought  to  task  and  to  have  no  answer.  If  the  positive  state- 
ment were  substituted,  tbs  effect  would  be  that  of  precise  information 

2 

rather  than  of  interrogation.”  Caussin,  speaking  of  the  figure  of  inter- 
rogation says:  ” Saepe  utitur  hac  figura,  dum  vult  aliouid  insinuare  men- 

z 

tibus,  et  interrogate  se,  et  suspendit  animos,  deinde  respondit.  Scbmalz, 
also,  ascribes  various  purposes  to  the  rhetorical  question:  "Vanche  Frage- 
sStze  sind.  nur  der  Form  nach  Fragen,  enthalten  aber  tatsSchlich  eine  Be- 
hauptung,  ei.ne  Auf f orderung,  einen  Hunch,  einen Bef ehl. . . Auch  der  Ausdruck 
des  Unwillens  Oder  der  Viszfcilligung  gegendfcer  einer  Behauptung,  einer  At- 

sicht,  einer  Aufforderung,  auch  einer  Totsache  kann  in  die  Form  einer  Fra- 

************  *********  ******** 

^On  the  Sublime,  18. 1-2, tr.  Roberts.  He  should  have  had  iccfv  informa- 
tion £rom  Longinus  had  not  two  pages  of  the  MS  been  lost  at  this  point. 

^On  style, 279, tr.  Roberts. 

'De  Eloquent ia, 44?. 


» 


- .. 


. 


■ 

' 


ge  gekleidet  warden."-1  Moczynski  in  his  work  on  Livy’s  style  says  of  the 
rhetorical  question:  "...  quas  cur  scriptcr  adhibeat,  multae  eaeque  non 
pares  ubique  causae  extant.” 

The  preceding  pages  together  with  e careful  study  of  the  questions  in 
the  Philippics  throw  sufficient  light  on  the  nature  of  the  figure,  'fie  can 
now  by  a process  of  elimination  arrive  at  a conclusion  as  to  the  extent  of 
its  use  in  the  Philippics  . Fy  this  process  indirect  questions  have  been 
eliminated,  even  if  the  .text  has  an  interrogation  point  after  them.  A typi- 
cal example  of  them  is  the  following 

Cuaero  deinceps,  num  hodiernus  dies  qui  sit  ignores? 

Also  questions  dependent  on  dicat  quispiam.  Though  Longinus  classifies  suet 

4 

questions  as  rhetorical  , the  weight  of  authority  is  on  the  other  side. 

They  bring  forth  a difficulty,  which  requires  an  answer  or  an  explanation 
from  the  orator,  as 

Tu  i?itur  ipse  de  te?  dixerit  quispiam. 

Furthermore  direct  quotations  have  not  been  counted,  as 

£ 

lanitor, ”0uis  tu?"  "A  Marco  tabellarius. " 

Sometimes  such  quotations  are  rhetorical  questions,  but  inasmuch  as  they 
are  not  Cicero’s  they  have  been  omitted  fro®  the  count,  as 

7 

"Quas  tu  mihi, " inquit,  "intercessiones,  quas  religiones?" 

**************** t*********** 

^Syntax  and  St i 1 i st i k, 210. 

De  Titi  Livi  in  libris...  quaest iones, p. 24. Cf • also  Victor inus, Ars 
Phet.,in  Orelli’s  Ciceronis  Opera, Vol.2 , pt . 1, p. 2P2; Cic.Orat . , 40. I2?; Tib. , 
Spengel,  Cr.Orat. , 2.  *4.  29  f f • ; Anon.,  [bid.,2. 124.5;  Herjuog. , Ibi  cl. , 2. 484.  2s;  if. 

22.42. 110. 

4 

_0n  the  Sublime, 18.1. 

^14.5.1?. 

2. 81.77. 

'l.l0.2p. 


Lastly  those  questions  have  net  been  counted,  which  are  answered  directly 
by  the  orator  himself*  fis  was  stated  above,  they  form  the  so-called  figure 
of  question  and  answer,  but  they  can  hardly  be  classed  with  rhetorical 
quest  ions. 

After  deducting  thes.e  four  types  of  questions  from  the  sura  total,  the 
eight  hundred  fifty-one  that  remain  are  rhetorical.  E’Ooge  in  his  chapter 
on  indirect  discourse  holds  that  a question  in  the  subjunctive  is  rhetori- 
cal. He  says:  "If  the  mood  is  subjunctive,  the  question  is  rhetorical  and 
the  subjunctive  is  retained  in  the  indirect  discourse.  If  the  mood  in  di- 
rect discourse  be  the  indicative,  it  is  sometimes  difficult  to  determine 
whether  the  question  is  real  and  to  be  expressed  in  indirect  discourse  by 
the  subjunctive,  or  rhetorical  and  t,o  be  expressed  by  the  infinitive.  Of- 
ten it  depends  merely  on  the  writer’s  point  of  view.  Similarly  the  re- 
maining questions  in  the  indicative  are  rhetorical.  This  conclusion  was 
arrived  at  after  a careful  study  of  the  Philippics,  which  resulted  in  what 
was  said  in  the  foregoing  pages.  And  now  recalling  the  many  varieties  and 
purposes  of  the  rhetorical  question,  as  stated  above,  we  find  that  it  is 
impossible  to  formulate  a definition  broad  enough  to  embrace  it  in  all  its 
applications.  The  following  definitions  represent  ray  notion  of  the  figure, 
though  in  an  imperfect  way,  as  gathered  from  the  orations  under  considera- 
tion. A question,  which  has  lest  its  interrogative  character.  A question 
that  does  not  seek  information  and  is  accompanied  by  strong  emotion.  A 
question  that  suggests  its  own  answer. 

********************************* 

"Lat.  Corap.,  parts  2 and  7,  p. 2^0. 


. 


m. 

'ft? 


24 


nr.  THE  PHILIPPIC  ORATIONS. 

The  Philippics,  the  latest  orations  of  Cicero,  were  delivered  daring 
his  life  and  death  duel  with  Antony,  who  had  been  Caesar's  colleague. in 
the  consulship.  Many  were  the  causes  of  Cicero's  secret  and  growing  ani- 
mosity towards  the  consuls.  He  was  afraid  of  Caesar  and  courted  his  favcr 
in  his  correspondence  with  him  and  especially  in  the  panegyric  Ve  Provin- 
ces Consularib us.  Put  the  hated  dictator  net  his  fate  on  the  Ides  of 
March,  44  P.C.  Cicero  was  not  privy  to  the  plot,  because  the  conspirators 
did  not  trust  him.  He  was  present,  however,  at  the  murder  and  delighted 
at  the  siAht.^He  further  discloses  his  feelings  towards  Antony  when  he 
says  that  "we  should  have  had  nc  leavings,  had  I teen  invited  to  the  noble 
festival  of  the  Ides  of  March  ; instead  cf  "playing  only  one  act,  I shoulu 
have  finished  tho  whole  play."  'In  other  words,  he  would  have  killed  Anto- 
ny also.  The  events  that  followed  were  such  as  to  give  no  credit  to  Foiran 
reputation  for  administration,  law  and  order.  Might  ana  treachery  were  a 
law  unto  themselves.  Cicero  decided  to  leave  Italy  and  made  the  attempt  to 
do  so.  Upon  being  driven  back  by  contrary  winds  and  hearing  that  affairs 
at  Rome  assumed  a brighter  outlook,  he  returned  to  the  city  cn  the  last 

J d Att. , 14. 14.4. 

_Ad  Fam. , 10. 23. 1. 

Phil. ,2. 11. 


day  of  August;  The  following  day  Antony  convoked  the  senate.  Cicero  did 
not  attend  on  the  ground  that  he  was  too  tired  and  ill  frou.  the  .journey. 
Antony  was  piqued  and  even  threatened  Cicero  for  not  appearing.  On  the 
second  of  September  the  senate  convened  again  and  Cicero  delivered  his 
first  ovation  against  Antony,  who  in  turn  was  absent.  Fy  way  of  introduc- 
tion he  gave  the  reasons  for.  his  departure  from  Italy  and  his  sudden  re- 
turn to  the  capital;  also  for  his  absence  from  the  senate  on  the  preceding 
day.  In  the  body  of  the  oration  he  complained > in  moderate  terms  of  the 
conduct  of  Antony  and  expressed  his  hope  that  all  might  be  settled  quiet- 
ly. This  oration  elicited  an  outburst  of  anger  on  the  part  of  Antony  and 
the  two  became  declared  and  irreconcilable  enemies.  Thereupon  Cicero  pro- 
ceeded to  compose  his  second  Philippic.  Upon  it  he- lavished  all  his  rhet- 
orical charms;  and  .it  is  this  oration  that  .marks  the  zenith  of  his  ability 
as  an  orator.  In  it  he  gave  Antony  the  worst  verbal  lashing  ever  given  to 
a man.  He  presented  Antony’s  life  and  conduct,  bis  cruelty  and  lawlessness 
in  a full  and  glaring  picture  that  makes  human  nature  shudder.  It  is  so 
severe,  so  titter  and  so  complete  a diatribe  expressed  in  terms  of  the 
most  unqualified  contempt  and  open  detestation,  that  a perusal  of  it  Bakes 
one  feel  that  there  was  not  a moment,  net  an  act  in  Antony’s  life  that  was 
worthy  of  a man.  In  this  tone  the  struggle  continued.  The  union  of  young 
Octavius  with  the  senatorial  party  and  the  defection  of  two  legions  forced 
Antony  to  a hurried  departure  from  the  city.  Cicero,  new  in  his  sixtieth 
year,  once  more  came  forth,  as  in  the  crisis  twenty  years  before,  the 
prime  ministei  cf  Force,  the  champion  of  the  republic  which  he  cherished 
as  the  apple  cf  his  eyeland  which  was  the  object  of  his  sollicitude  and 
painstaking  care.  He  animated  the  government  in  the  third  Philippic  and 
roused  the  populace  to  his  cause  in  the  fourth.  Sc  singular  was  his  sue- 


5 3 or  the  latter  occasion  that  he  exclaims: "Quo  quidem  tempore,  etiamai 
ille  dies  vitae  fiinem  ir> i h i allaturus.esset,  satis  magnum  ceperam  fructum, 
quum  vos  universi  ana  mente  atque  voce  iterum  a me  conservstam  esse  re  a 
putlicem  conclamast is. " The  fifth,  sixth,  seventh  Philippics  represent 
Cicero’s  efforts  to  persuade  the  senate  to  declare  Antony  an  enemy  of  the 
state  and  to  defeat  the  measure  thereby  an  embassy  was  to  be  sent  to  bin. 
he  deprecated  negotiations  with  a rebel  in  arms,  arguing  that  such  a peace 
would  be  dangerous  and  disgraceful  and  urged  the  senate  to  act  with  firm- 
ness and  resolution.  His  efforts  would  have  been  successful  had  not  one  of 
the  tribunes  interposed  his  veto.  Meanwhile  the  .embassy  returned  with  the 
report  that  Antony  remained  obstinate  in  his  opposition  to  the  senatorial 
party.  Thereupon  the  senate  declared  a "tumult urn"  instead  of  a "bellurr”  , 
as  Cicero  had  urged.  Hence  in  the  eighth  Philippic  he  expostulates  with 
the  senators  on  their  unmanly  and  unwise  action.  The  ninth  oration  is  tai  - 
en  up  with  the  proposal  of  voting  honors  to  Sulpicius,  who  died  on  the 
embassy  to  Antony. 

In  the  meantime  the  scene  of  the  contest  shifted  to  the  East,  to 
Macedonia  and  Syria.  A long  time  elapsed  before  news  of  the  successes  of 
Brutus  reached  Rome.  When  they  were  communicated  to  the  senate,  Calenus, 
a creature  of  Antony,  moved  that  Prutus  should  be  deprived  of  his  command 
on  the  ground  that  he  was  acting-  without  lawful  authority.  It  was  against 
this  motion  that  Cicero  gave  vent  to  his  patriotic  indignation  in  the 
tenth  Philippic  and  succeeded  from  obtaining  from  the  senate  a confirma- 
tion of  Prutus’  position  and  an  acknowledgment  of  his  services.  The  ele- 


venth  oration  is  in  favor  of  appointing  Cassias  to  the  command  of  the  arxy 
of  Trebonius,  who  had  been  treacherously  murdered  ky  Eolakella.  In  the 
twelfth  and  thirteenth  orations  he  again  strenacusly  and  succe&sf ally  op- 
posed the  sending  of  a second  embassy  to  Antony.  In  the  thirteenth  he  also 
criticized  in  scathing  terra  a letter  of  Antony  to  the  senate.  Soon  re- 
ports reached  Pome,  announcing  a total  defeat  of  Antcn.y.  This  soundeo  the 
signal  of  Cicero's  victory.  The  occasion  furnished  bin  with  topics  cf  tri- 
umph, panegyric,  and  pathos.  Never  before  had  he  such  an  opportunity  to 
display  the  powers  of  his  charming  eloquence  and  he  availed  himself  of  it 
in  a glorious  manner  in  the  fourteenth  and  last  Philippic. 

Throughout  the  period  in  which  the  Philippics  were  delivered  Cicero 

felt  that  he  was  fighting  only  "with  words  against  words",  for  the  real 

1 

power  was  in  the  hands  of  Antony  and  his  soldiers.  This  incensed  Cicero 
all  the  more.  The  occasion  was  a great  one,  hut  Cicero  was  equal  to  it. 

Pis  Philippics  3re  an  example  of  the  most  eloquent  and  patriotic  indigna- 
tion,- of  a forcible,  florid  style  of  oratory  that  have  cone  down  to  us. 
They  are  replete  with  ornaments  of  style  particularly  the  figure  cf  inter- 
rogation. It  is  for  this  reason  that  they  have  keen  selected  for  this  stu- 
dy. 

The  origin  of  the  name  Philippics,  as  applied  to  Cicero's  orations 
against  Antony,  is  not  definitely  known.  In  a letter  to  Brutus,  Cicero 


himself  in  a .jest  names  them  so  and  Prutus  adopts  the  name.  Juvenal 
writes: 


Guam  te  conspieuae,  divine  Philippics  fsmae, 
Volveris  a prima  quae  proxima." 


1 


r 

Z 


Ad  Prut., 5.4-"/  'Sat , , 4. 10. 12K  f. 


2.4.9. 


• 

• 

. 

• 

* p 


23 


Plutarch  says:  '’Cicero  entitled  his  own  orations  on  which  he  bestowed  most 

7 

labor,  those  against  Antony,  Philippics.”  In  whatever  way  it  came  stoat, 
their  resemblance  to  the  orations  of  Demosthenes  against  King  Thilip, 
which  were  greatly  admired  by  Cicero,  justifies  the  name. 


********************************** 

Cicero, 24. 


' 


rrr.  mood?  in  fhetoficjl  questions. 


25 


Indicative. 

Of  the  total  ntm<fcer  of  nine  hundred  forty-seven  questions  in  the 
Philippics,  eight  hundred  fifty-one  sre  used  rhetorically,  of  which  sever 
hundred  ten  are  in  the  indicative,  one  hundred  forty  in  the  subjunctive 
and  one  ir  the  infinitive.  The  indicative  prevails  over  the  subjunctive  in 
the  proportion  of  about  five  to  6ne\  This  preponderance  is  characteristic 
not  only  of  the  Philippics  tut  also  of  the  other  orations  of  Cicerc.  The 
character  of  an  orator,  the  circun stances  and  the  purpose  under  which 
orations  are  usually  delivered  explain  such  a preponderance.  The  orator’s 
position  is  that  of  one  who  is  striving  to  instruct,  persuade,  snd  con- 
vince; hence  no  other  mood  is  so  well  adapted  for  the  attainment  of  his 
end  as  is  the  indicative.  It  reveals  his  plans,  bis  motives,  his  ideals, 
and  his  own  firm  convictions  in  the  form  of  questions,  which  are  virtually 
eooivalent  to  statements  and  those  emphatic  cnes. 

The  answer  expected  by  the  rhetorical  question  in  the  indicative  is, 

r 

as  a rule,  a negative  one  ,as 

Quid  enim  ille  unquan  arbitrio  suo  fecit? 

************************************ 

1Cf.  statistics  for  Livy,  Canter,  Elements  ir  Livy’s  Direct  Speeches, 
J.I>, *8, p. 127,  footnote. 

Gildersleeve-Lodge,  Gram.,  4^4. 

2 -ft 

*. 2,4. 


2C 

The  anticipated  or  implied  answer  is  "Nothing”.  Likewise  when  Cicero  asks 
8 1 o u t the  exiles  who,  all  knew,  have  not  teen  restored  to  their  former 
position: 


N'urn  cui  exsules  restituti?1 

Here  nonne  is  employed  a negative  answer  is  anticipated  to  a negative  and 

r 

consequently  becomes  affirmative,  as 
Nonne  sic  disputant? 

The  answer  is  "Yes,  they  do,"  In  double  questions  tie  negative  answer  is 

4 

anticipated  by  one  of  the  alternatives  . Khich  one  it  is  depends  upon  a 
knowledge  of  the  circumstances,  as 

Salusne  aberair,  an  non  saepe  minus  frequentes  fuistis,  an  ea  res 
agebatur,  ut  etiam  aegrotos  deferri  oporteret? 

On  the  contrary  the  subjunctive  sets  forth  the  argument  in  less  dog- 
matic terms  by  presenting  the  case  to  the  judgment  of  the  orator’s  hearers 
and  courting  their  approval.  The  skillful  orator,  by  an  appropriate  and 
timely  use  of  the  subjunctive  in  rhetorical  questions,  can  achieve  nearly 
as  much  and  at  times  even  more  than  by  the  indicative.  £fter  he  has 
brought  his  hearers  to  a stage  where  he  feels  that  they  are  in  complete 
harmony  with  himself,  he  can  without  risk  put  a question  to  them  for  solu- 
tion, for  he  knows  that  they  will  approve  the  solution  bis  question  sug- 
gests. Us  experience  shows,  a crowd  in  such  circumstances  imagines  that  it 

****************************** 

*11  2 
£ 1 • L - • 

3 ildersleev e— Lc d g e , Gran.,  4*4  Rem. 

"7  1 2 
4 

Canter,  Elements  in  Livy's  Direct  Speeches,  A, J.P. 38, p. 1?7, footnote. 

*1 .5.11. 


• • • 


- 


? 

- .* . V. 

if  - 

• . 


' 


- 


JS  : : 


*1 

is  acting  independently  of  the  speaker.  Accordingly  me  nr e y conclude  that 
Cicero  employs  the  indicative  in  rhetorical  questions  in  the  Philippics, 
unless  soDie  particular  reason  exists  for  the  use  of  the  subjunctive. 

Fut.  little  need  be  said  here  of  the  use  of  the  tenses  of  the  indica- 
tive in  rhetorical  questions.  Their  distribution  is  ss  follows:  four  hun- 
dred eight  instances  in  the  present,  thirty-four  in  the  imperfect,  eighty- 
five  in  the  future,  one  hundred  seventy-seven  ir  the  perfect,  five  in  the 
pluperfect,  end  one  in  the  future  perfect.  The  greater  number  of  occur- 
rences of  the  present  is  largely  due  to  the  fact  that  most  questions  raise 
in  categoric  form  the  existence  or  ron-existence,  truth  or  non-truth  as  to 
actions,  phenomena,  persons,  or  things,  yoreover  they  implicitly  challenge 
the  audience  to  gainsay  the  statements  which  the  orator  makes  in  the  fora 
of  questions.  Many  of  them  begin  with  such  stock  expressions  as  "quis"  or 
’’quid  est"  or  "quis  (or  quid)  potest  esse",  which  in  many  instances  close 
with  a clause  of  characteristic.  The  clause  of  characteristic  points  out 
the  kind  of  actions,  phenomena,  persons,  or  thirrgs  as  the  case  may  be,  of 
whose  non-existence  or  non-truth  the  orator  is  firmly  convinced.  Examples 
of  this  kind  are: 

...ouis  enim  id  quidem  pctest?^ 

r 

^ £ 

Cuis  est  enim  hodie  cuius  intersit  ist am  legem  manere? 

Cuae  potest  esse  turpitudinis  tantae  defensic? 

Wutatis  mutandis  the  reason  for  the  majority  of  the  presents  holds  good 
for  the  majority  of  the  perfects.  Thus 

Cuitus  rebus  tantis  talibus  gestis  quid  fuit  causae  cur  in  Afri- 
******************************* 

^1.9.21. 


. 


. 

*• 


can  Caessren  non  sequerere,  cum  praesertim  belli  pars  tants  resteret? 

r 

Cuis  enin  miles  fuit  oui  Frundisi  illam  non  viderit? 

Also  of  the  pluperfect,  as 

Quid  enim  unfair,  domus  ilia  viderat  nisi  pudicum,  quid  nisi  ex 

2 

optimc  iiiore  et  sanctissina  discipline? 

The  instances  cf  the  future  are  well  divided  among  the  several  kinds  of 
introductions.  Some  are  introduced  by  pronouns  or  adverbs,  as 

4 

...retinere  quis  poterit  clerissimo  domino  restitute? 

Others  without  any  interrogative  particle  are  usually  accompanied  by  the 
ides  of  indignation  or  surprise  or  the  two  combined,  as 

p 

Tu,  ...  ut  me  convincas,  ipse  pessime  senties?" 

or  by  an,  as 


* 


An  vero  quisquam  dubitatit  appellere  Caesaren  imperatcrem? 

The  sole  instance  of  the  future  perfect  is: 

7 

Cur  non  inauguraris? 

Only  one  instance  is  found  in  the  Philippics  where  the  present  indicative 
is  used  instead  of,  or  (and  perhaps  more  correctly)  with  the  force  cf  the 

p 

present  subjunctive  of  the  deliberative  type: 

9 

Sed  quid  plura  de  lege  dispute? 

Evidently  Cicero’s  meaning  is  "Fut  why  should  l say  more  about  this  law?” 
( = "There  is  no  need  of  saying  more  about,  this  law.”) 


.2.79.71. 

5.28. *9. 


13.p.12. 

14.7.18. 

14.10.58. 


• 5.4*.110. 
Lane,  Oran., 

} 

a r\  r-  r 

1.  r . 44. 


1*27 


. 


22 


Sub junct i ve. 

The  subjunctive  mood,  as  was  said,  usually  represents  a concession 
trade  to  the  audience  and  allows  it  to  decide  for  itself.  The  question,  how- 
ever, is  put  to  it  at  a tine,  when  there  is  little  likelihood  that  it  will 
disagree  with  the  speaker.  The  answer  suggested  by  the  speaker  and  elicited 
by  the  question  tray  be  of  a dubitative  or  potential  character,  Sometimes 
the  speaker  does  not  suggest  an  answer,  hence  no  answer  is  elicited  by  the 
question.  Accordingly  rhetorical  questions  in  the  subjunctive  are  diviied 
into  three  classes^:  those  that  expect  a)  no  answer,  b)  an  imperative  ans- 
wer cr  its  equivalent,  c)  a potential  answer  in  the  negative. 

Subjunctive  questions  anticipating  no  answer. 

Of  this  type  I found  only  twenty-two  instances  in  the  Philippics. 
Eleven  ate  in  the  present,  seven  in  the  inperfect,  two  in  the  perfect  and 
two  in  the  pluperfect.  They  usually  present  a supposed  case  - what  would 
be  likely  to  happen  under  a giver,  condition.  Thus  Cicero,  referring  to 
Antony’s  accusing  bin-  of  complicity  in  the  murder  of  Cledius,  suggests  the 
sit  uat ion: 

Guidnam  homines  putarent,  si  turn  occisus  esset  cum  tu  ilium  in 
foro  inspectante  populo  Fomano  gladio  insecutus  es  negotiumque  tran- 
segisses,  nisi  se  ille  in  scales  tabernse  libraries  coniecisset  eis- 

r 

£ 

que  oppilstis  impetum  tuum  eompressisset? 

In  another  place,  picturing  the  state  of  affairs  if  Ant-cny  had  control  of 
Caul,  he  exclaims: 

1 • 
^Schmalz,  Syntax  und  Stilistik,  p.  47£f  no,  211, 

2 


r ^ r 


. ■ 


*4 

Nam  si  V. Antonio  patuisset  Gallia  si  oppreseis  nunicipiis  et 

colcniis  imparatis  in  illem  ultiaan  Galliam  penetrare  potuisset, 

1 

quantus  rei  publicae  terror  inpenderet? 
and  the  following  with  anaphora: 

Medico  tria  milia  iugerun:  quid,  si  te  sanaeset?  rhetori  duo: 

r 

quid,  si  te  disertum  facere  potuisset? 

In  each  instance  it  is  clear  that  the  absurdity  of  the  supposed  situation 
is  shown. 

Subjunctive  questions  anticipating  an  imperative  answer. 


Questions  of  this  type  are  the  most  numerous  of  the  three  types  ir, 
the  subjunctive.  Seventy  instances  are  found,  which  with  the  exception  of 
one  in  the  perfect  and  six  in  the  imperfect,  are  all  in  the  present  terse. 
Imperative  answers, or  their  logical  equivalents,  elicited  from  the  ora- 
tor’s hearers  contain  the  ne+ic..  of  duty,  propriety,  or  fitness  of  a pre- 
sent or  past  action  or  situation.  They  are  elicited  by  questions  of  the 

2 4 

deliberative  type  of  subjunctive  in  its  broader  meaning  . 


1 


J* :***************************** 

2 2 

2.59.101.  Giidersleeve-Lodge, Gram. , 4^5, 2*5  and  Ren. 


The  deliberative  subjunctive  is  net  taken  here  in  its  narrow  neanin 
for  in  that  case  it  can  be  applied  only  to  questions  designated  by  the 
term  "dubit alive",  in  which  the  speaker  appears  to  te  actually  deliberat- 
ing with  himself.  Fere  it  is  taken  in  the  wider  sense  as  we  find  it  ex- 
plained in  our  grammars.  Cf.  Fennett,  Gram.  277,  Syntax,  pp.  177-18*.  lulius 
Pufinianus  writes:  Apcria,  eaderr  est  et  dia^oresis,  addubitatic  quaedam, 
cum  simulanus  quaerere  ncs,  unde  ineipiendue , quid  potissimum  dicendum,  ?.n 
omnino  dicendum;  cumaue  art  if icialiter  simu^amus  non  siti  res  invenire  non 
paratos  venisse.  Cic.  ir.  Verren:  Quern?  Guen, quam?  Recte  sdn ones, Pel ycl it un 
esse  dicebant.  Ft  de  dome  sua  spud  pontifices:  Tibi  litter8s  ille  misit? 
quas?  aut  numiquarc  misit, aut  si  misit,  in  concione  recitari  noluit.  Itaoue 
sive  misit,  sive  tu  protulisti:  certe  consilium  tuum  de  honore  Catonis 
nudatum  est.  R.L. M.;  40. 52;  Caussin,  Ee  Eloquentia,  p.451,  ad  Cic.  Ee  Orat. 


» 


Nearly  all  questions  of  this  type  8re  of  the  first  person.  In  some 
cases  Cicero  addresses  his  auditors  and  asks  their  opinion  as  if  he  wished 
to  conform  himself  to  it.  In  reality,  however,  the  form  of  question  serves 
tut  as  a cover  for  a direct  statement  of  the  justification  or  feasibility 
of  his  own  procedure.  The  questions  imply  that  what  he  did  was  natural  and 
human,  in  fact  the  best  that  any  human  being  could  do  under  the  given  cir- 
cumstances. Hence  the  force  of  the  questions  is  derived  from  the  general 
consensus  and  good  judgment  of  mankind,  of  which  the  hearers  are  a part. 

In  appealing  to  this  good  judgment  of  his  hearers  the  orator  attains  a 
closer  harmony  between  then  and  himself.  Thereby  he  rids  the  questions  of 
the  purely  personal  element  and  does  not  expose  himself  greatly  to  the 
danger  cf  disapproval,  which  might  be  the  result  of  a direct  statement. 
Appealing  to  the  good  sense  of  the  audience  Cicero  asks: 

Hune  igitur  egc  consulem,  hunc  civem  Fomanum,  hune  liberum,  tunc 
denique  bominem  putem,  oui  foedo  illo  et  flagiticso  die  et  quid  pati 

C.Caesare  vivo  posset  et  quid  eo  mortuo  consequi  ipse  euperet  csten- 
1 

dit? 

And  the  logical  answer  spontaneously  springs  up  in  the  minds  of  the  hear- 
ers, ’’No,  do  not!"  Further  examples  of  this  type  are: 

VeruB  praeterita  craitt amus:  etismne  hanc  moram,  dum  profieis- 
cantur  legati,  dum  revert  ant ur?  quorum  expectatio  dubit at ionem  belli 

r r 

adf  ert?  z 

***************  ************* 

T. £14,  Aporia, dubitatic  nobiscum  per  dialogismum.  Unum  pro  mult  is  erit 
exemplum  quo  ipsis  inimicis  lacrymas  excussit  C.Cracchus.  Cue  me  nisei 
eonferam?  Cuo  vertam?  In  Capitol iurnne?  At  fratris  sanguine  redundat:  an 

domum?  matremne  ut  miseran  lament  ant ernque  videam  et  abjectam? 

1 


Quid  enim  ire  int erponerem  audaciae  tuae,  cuem  neaue  auctcritas 
huius  ordinis  neque  existiaatio  populi  Romani  neque  leges  ullae  pos- 
sent  coercere? 

Postea  vero  quam  se  totum  Pompeius  Caesari  tradidit,  quid  ego 

r 

Z 

ilium  efc  eo  distrahere  conarer? 

Quod  ergo  ipse  tremini  putavi  dandum,  ne  a senatu  quidem,  id  ego 
anius  iudieio  delatum  comprobem?  ' 

Sometimes  they  are  purely  deliberative,  as 

4 

Guid  putem?  contempt  utrne  me? 

p 

Quid  duos  Servilios  - Caseas  dicam  an  £halas? 

In  other  instances  besides  being  deliberative  in  character  they  nark  a 


transition,  as 

Quid  ego  istius  decrete,  quid  rapines,  quid  hereditatum  posses- 

f' 

siones  dates,  quid  ereptas  proferam? 

Guid  ego  de  L.Cinna  loqusr?  cuius  spectata  multis  magnisque  re- 
bus singularis  integritas  minus  admiral i lent  fscit.  buius  honestissimi 

facti  gloriam,  aui  omnino  provinciam  neglexit,  ouas  item  megno  sniac 

7 

et  constsnti  G.Cestius  repudiavit. 

Questions  anticipating  a potential  answer  ir  the  negative. 

This  is  the  third  and  last  type  of  questions  in  the  subjunctive  to  be 
considered.  There  are  forty-eight  instances  in  the  Philippics,  distributed 
among  the  tenses  as  follows:  fifteen  in  the  present,  twenty-two  in  the  im- 


0 4 0 

• > • 


_2.10.22. 

"ll.10.2T. 


****************************** 

4 7 

R2.1.2.  5.10.20 

^ I. 11.27. 

2.2*. *2. 


*7 


perfect  end  eleven  in  the  pluperfect.  The  perfect  dees  not  occur.*  The 
rhetorical  character  of  these  questions  is  very  pronounced.  They  are  equi 

r 

valent  to  emphatic  negations  , as 

Cuis  enin  audeat  luci,  quis  in  n. ilitari  via,  ouis  tene  comitatum 
quis  inlustrem  sg^redi? 

The  answer  is  an  emphatic  "No  one  would".  All  of  these  questions  are  of 
the  shoul d-woul d type  and  irore  than  three-fourths  are  in  the  third  person, 
as 

Ouae  non  esset  lon^ior  quam  hac  vita,  ouis  esset  tan.  amens  oui 
maximis  labcribus  et  periculis  ad  summen  lauden  gloriamque  conten- 

4 

deret? 

Honests  cratic,  sed  ite,  si  boros  et  utilis  et  e re  publica 

civis:  sin  eos  qui  natura  cives  sunt,  voluntate  hostes,  salvos  velis, 

p 

quid  tandem  irtersit  inter  te  et  illcs? 

Few  questions  are  of  the  second  person,  as 

Sed  quid  opponas  tandam,  si  neqem  me  umquam  ad  te  istas  iitteras 
* 

mississe? 

Ouem  ipse  victor,  oui  tibi  ut  tute  ilorisri  scletss,  detulerat 

ex  lstronibus  suis  principal  urn,  salvum  esse  volaisset,  in  Italian  ire 

7 

iussisset,  eum  tu  oceideres? 

Infinitive  of  Exclamation. 

There  is  one  question  in  the  Philippics  that  contains  no  definite 
declaration,  no  notation  of  time,  number,  or  person,  but  simply  intinates 


- *•*•***, ******** 


1. 


There  are  but  three  perfect  subjunctives  in.ajl  the  questions  in  the 
Philippics. 

^(5il  lersIeeve-Lodge,  3ran . , 2P9,  4^* 


12.10.2% 

14.12.32. 


C d 2 

7 * - * ' " 

f r 7 c: 

**  * • < 


. 


i . 


the  action.  It  may  te  explained  as  an  accusative  cf  exclarration  in  excited 
question  coupled  with  an  infinitive  of  intimation.  The  mhole  question  is 
very  passionate  and  indignant. 

0 admiratilero  in pudent isiij,  sudaciam,  teneritatem!  in  eun  edules- 
centen  hoc  scrifcere  audere,  ouen  e£o  et  frster  meus  propter  eius  sua- 
vissimos  atque  cptin.cs  mores  praestsnt issirtun  que  ingenium  certetim 

,r 

8n>srrus  omnifcusque  horis  oculis,  aurifcus,  complexu  tenemus? 


***************************** 
^Cf.  Lane,  Gram.,  1150,  1535,  1533. 

^3.7.13. 


IV.  TYPES  OF  QUESTIONS. 


Questions  are  usually  divided  into  two  kinds,  word  questions  and 

sentence  questions.  The  forner  are  introduced  by  interrogative  pronouns 

J 1 

(used  substantively  or  adject ively),  words  of  pronoun  origin  and  adverts; 
the  latter  (also  cslled  Yes  or  No  questions)  are  introduced  by  various 
particles.  A third  kind  »ay  be  added  here  for  convenience  of  treatment.  Un- 
der this  latter  head  will  be  classified  all  questions  in  which  nc  interro- 
gative introductory  word  is  found.  Fe  shall  now  proceed  to  consider  these 
types  of  questions  used  with  a rhetorical  force  in  the  Philippics,  and  in 
so  doing  subdivide  each  type  according  to  the  words  that  introduce  the 
questions.  As  to  the  third  type,  no  such  subdivision  is  possible.  They 
will,  therefore,  be  considered  in  one. 


WORD  QUESTIONS. 


Pronoun  Questions* 

If  we  put  int(e  one  class  all  the  questions  th8t  are  introduced  by  pro- 
nouns and  words  of  pronoun  origin  (there  are  tut  nine  of  the  latter),  we 
find  that  they  fortu  by  far  the  greatest  group.  There  are  three  hundred  six- 
ty-three instances  in  the  Philippics,  about  three-sevenths  of  all  the  ques- 
tions. In  the  majority  of  instances  they  refer  not  to  a particular  person 
or  thing,  but  to  the  class  of  which  the  person  or  thing  is  a part,  the  ob- 
ject , about  which  the  question  turns,  may  be  either  real  or  supposed.  For 
more  detailed  treatment  we  shall  divide  the  questions  into  three  classes: 
a)  those  introduced  by  interrogative  pornouns  used  substantively,  t)  by 
interrogative  pronouns  used  adject ively,  c)  by  words  of  pronoun  origin.- 

Questions  introduced  by  interrogative  pronouns 
used  substantively. 

This  group,  again,  is  the  largest  of  the  type  of  Questions  introduced 
by  pronouns, there  being  two  hundred  fifty-three  instances.  Its  preponder- 
ance is  due  in  large  part,  as  was  said  in  connection  with  moods,  to  the 
predominance  of  ouestions  introduced  by  stock  forms  like  "quis  cr  ouid  est" 
which  deny  in  a rhetorical  and  forcible  way  the  existence  of  some  one  or 
something,  whose  acts  or  characteristics  do  not  harmonize  with  the  sten:.~ 


' 


ards  defended  by  the  speaker.  Should  the  actions  of  the  prosecuted  person 
be  out  of  harmony  with  such  e natural  sna  sensible  standard,  bis  deeds 
would  consequently  appear  irore  flagrant  and  nore  worthy  of  condemnation. 
Thus  Cicero,  whose  illness  trade  it  impossible  for  bin  to  be  present  at  the 
assembly  of  the  senate  convoked  by  Antony  on  the  first  of  September,  and 
who  notwithstanding  was  several  tines  impertinently  summoned,  asks  with 
indignant  censure  of  Antony’s  unreasonableness: 

1 

Ouis  autem  unique®  tanto  damno  senetoren  coegit? 

Similarly: 

Cuis  eniu  eut  sccusator  tam  amens  reperitur  qui  reo  condemnato 

obici  se  multitudini  conductae  velit,  aut  iudex  qui  reum  damnare  au- 

2 

deat,  ut  ipse  ad  operae  mercennarias  statin  protrahatur? 

2 

Quis  umquam  apparitor  tarn  humilis,  tam  abiectus? 

4 

Guam:  severitate®  ouis  potest  non  laudare? 

Tt  was  noticed  that  neuters  are  far  more  numerous  than  masculines  (one 
hundred  fifty-four  against  ninety-nine)  and  that  no  instances  of  the  fem- 
inine occur.  On  the  whole  neuters  are  employed  with  a purpose  similar  to 
that  of  the  masculines,  as 

Ouid  tandem  erst  causae  cur  in  senatum  hesterno  die  tam  acerbe 
cogerer? 

Quid  enim  turpius  auam  oui  maiestatem  populi  Romani  minuerit  per 

vim,  eum  damnatum  iudicic  ad  earn  ipsan  vim  reverti  propter  quern  sit 
* 

lure  damnstus? 

*************************** 

1 4 

„1.*.12.  ^11. 6.15. 

^1.9.22.  *l.*.ll. 

2.52.82.  1.9.21. 


" • 

* 


- - 


-•  . * - '■ 


Cuid  autem  hoc  iniustius  quam  nos  inscient  it  us  eis  qui  bellum 

1 

gerunt  de  pace  decernere? 

Fesides  "quis  or  quid  est",  which  occurs  most  frequently,  the  introductory 
words  used  commonly  are  "quis  ignorat",  "quis  potest",  auid  interest", 
"quis  sudivit",  quis  dubitat",  and  8 variety  of  others, 

r 

Cuid  enim  interest  inter  suesorem  facti  et  probatorem? 

3 

...  etsi  in  rebus  iniquissimis  quid  potest  esse  aequi? 

"Ouis  ignorst",  as  a rule,  appears  at  the  end  of  the  question,  as 

Cuamouam  ilia  auspicia  non  egent  interpret  at ione  augurum;  love 

enirn  tonante  cum  populo  a5i  non  esse  fas  ouis  ignorat? 

Alterius  consilium,  ingenium,  bum  an it  stem,  innicentiam,  magnitu- 

<5 

direm  animi  in  patris  liberanda  quis  ignorat? 

In  some  instances  the  perfect  is  accompanied  and  strengthened  by  uflnouam,as 

Cuis  enim  unquam  qui  paul urn  mode  bonorum  consuetudinem  nosset, 

litteras  ad  se  ab  amico  missas  offensione  aliqua  interposita  in  me- 

dium  pretulit  palamque  recitavit? 

Cuis  vero  audivit  umquam  - nullius  autem  salus  curae  pluribus 

7 

fuit-  de  fortunis  Varronis  res  ullam  esse  detractam? 

There  are  twenty-five  instances,  where  the  question  contains  a comparative 
idea  closely  united  with  the  interrogative  pronoun  and  which  resolves  it- 
self into  the  equivalent  of  a superlative,  as 

Cuid  enim  plenius,  quid  uberius  quam  mihi 

3 


Antonium  dicere? 

*12.4.9. 

, 2.15. 29. 

‘1.  *0.75. 

4 

/ • y • l 0 


***************************** 

% 1.4.9. 

•2.4.7. 

?2.40.104. 

Q 

i r\ 

1. 


et  pro  me  contra 


- 


. 


.* 


4* 


Quid  eni'o  est  deientius  qua®,  cam  rei  publicae  perniciosa  sffma 
ipse  ceperis,  obicere  alteri  salutaria?^ 


Quid  hoc  turpius,  quid  foedius,  quid  suppliciis  omnibus  dia- 


2 


nius? 

The  seme  number  of  instances  (twenty-five)  is  found,  where  th3<  questions 
are  Introduced  by  "quis  est  qui"  or  "quid  est  quod".  These  are  schemes  to 
amplify  and  strengthen  the  question  and  to  make  its  interrogative  character 
more  pronounced. 

Quis  enim  miles  fait,  oui  Brundisi  illam  non  viderit?  quis  qui 

nescierit  venisse  earn  tibi  tot  dierum  viam  gratu.latum?  ouis  qui  non 

indoluerit  tarn  sero  se  quam  nequam  hominem  secutus  esset  cognoscere? 

Ouis  erat  qui  hunc  non  casu  existimet  rect.e  fecisse,  nequitia 
4 

scelest e? 

Quid  erat  in  terris  ubi  in  tuo  pederc  poneres  praeter  unum  Wise- 
num  quod  cum  sociis  tanquam  Bisaponer  tenebas? 

In  eleven  instances  Cicero  introduces  the  Question  by  "quid  est  aliud"  to 
prove  the  similarity  of  two  things  or  actions  b.y  pointing  out  that  there 
exists  no  difference  between  them. 

Quid  est  aliud  tollere  ex  vita  societ atem,  tollere  amieorum 
conloquia  absent ium? 

7 

Quid  est  aliud  lifcrarium  Bruti  laudere,  Don  Brutuai? 

Quid  est  aliud  non  pacem  facers,  sea  differre  bell  urn,  nec  solum 

a 

propagare  bellum,  sed  concedere  etiam  victoriam? 


4 

-*.4.11. 

'2.19.43. 


V VI 


. 

' " . ■ 

• • 


y<t  1 


44 


[n  three  instances  quid  refers  to  a person,  as 

1 

Cuid  est  enirc  aliud  Antonias? 

Sometimes  to  add  force  to  sn  expression,  which  is  already  emphatic,  Cicero 

uses  an  adjective  modified  by  tam  to  characterize  and  render  still  more 

improbable  the  existence  of  a certain  kind  of  people,  as 

Guis  enim  aut  accusator  tarn  amens  reperitur  qui  reo  condemnato 

obici  se  mult  it ndini  conductae  velit,  aut  index  qui  ream  damnare  au- 

2 

deat  at  ipse  ad  operas  mercennar ias  statin  protrahatar? 

Guis  gate.ii  rex  arqua®  fait  tarn  insignite  impudens  at  haberet  o®- 

nia  commode,  beneficia,  iura  regni  venalia? 

Once  such  a question  is  used  of  an  inanimate  object: 

Huic  tanto  merito  Eruti,  patres  conscripti,  tsntoque  in  rem 

, . 4 

publics®  beneficio  quis  est  tantus  honos  qui  non  debeatur? 

There  are  two  questions  introduced  by  "quis  oui"  and  two  by  "aaid  quod" 

Guis  out  nescierit  venisse  earn  tibi  tot  dieru®  via®  gratula- 

t urn? 

• ••  cuid,  quod  a senatu  dantar  mandata  legatis  ut  D.Brutum  mi- 

lit  esque  eius  adeant  eisque  demonstrent  summa  in  re®  publics®  merit  a 

benefieiacue  eoru®  grata  esse  senatai  populoaae  Romano  eisque  earn 

* 

re®  magnae  laudi  tnagnoque  honori  fore? 

These  are  best  explained  by  the  oeission  of  some  such  word  as  "dicas"  or 
"est"  after  the  first  pronoun,  "Quid  est  causae",  which  makes  the  question 
more  emphatic  than  the  simpler  "quid"  or  "cur"  occurs  twice. 

**********************♦*****+ 

*2.23.70.  *3.13.37. 

*1.9.22.  ^2.2«.*1. 

"3.4.10. 


' 


Cuibus  rebus  tantis  taliturs  testis  quid  fuit  causae  cur  in  Afri- 
can Caesarens  non  sequerere,  cum  praesertim  belli  pars  tanta  resta- 

1 

ret? 


Questions  introduced  by  interrogative  pronouns 
used  adjectively. 


In  the  main  there  is  very  little  or  no  difference  between  this  and  the 
preceding  class  of  questions  as  to  their  rhetorical  use.  Their  force  is  the 
same,  i.e.  they  are  equivalent  to  an  emphatic  negation  or  its  equivalent. 
Yet,  while  the  former  are  very  general,  like  "quis  mortal  iura? " ,,TJti  gen- 
tium?'’ for  instance,  the  latter  on  the  other  hand  narrow  the  limits  of 
their  application,  as  "Quo  iure?"  "Qua  lege?"  One  hundred  one  instances 
are  found  in  the  philippics.  They  usually  refer  to  a smaller  and  well  de- 
fined class,  as 

Quae  vobis  potest  cum  hoc  ^ladiatore,  coodicionis, aecuitst  is,  Le- 

r 

5ationis  esse  communitas? 

Quae  pax  potest  esse  maior? 

4 

Postea  ouod  scelus,  quod  facinus  parricids  non  edidit? 

In  some  eases  it  is  difficult  to  decide  whether  the  interrogative  pronoun 
is  to  be  translated  by  "what?"  or  "what  kind  of?"  as 

Quo  enirn  aspeetu  videre  potero  - omitto  hostem  patriae,  ex  quo 
mi hi  odium  in  ilium  commune  vobiscum  est  - mi  hi  uni  crudel issimum 
hostem? ' 

£ 

Quod  est  tibi  cum  Frutis  bellun? 


1 


5.59.71. 

'*.2.3. 

9.  5. 


Ht*****************  ************* 

4 

k1?.9.51. 

^15. Q. 17. 

10.5.4. 


** 


4* 


Cum  hoc  Quae  pax  potest  esse? 

Questions  introduced  by  interrogative  v»ords 
of  pronoun  origin, 

Ey  words  of  pronoun  origin  are  meant  words  like  quantus,  qualis,  etc. 
They  are  used  adject ively  and  occur  in  tut  a few  instances  of  rhetorical 
questions,  since  they  are  by  nature  better  adapted  for  introducing  excla- 
mations, Cicero  found  use  in  the  Philippics  for  three,  namely  Quantus, cua- 
lis,  and  quotas,  Quantus  is  employed  five  times  and  even  in  these  instan- 
ces it  is  very  much  like  an  exclamatory  remark,  as 

Esto;  sit  in  verbis  tuis  hie  stupor:  quanto  in  rebus  sententiis- 
2 

aue  maior? 

Ft en ire  si  abhinc  annos  prope  viginti  hoc  ipso  in  templo  ne^avi 
posse  asortum  immat ura®  esse  consulari,  auanto  verius  nunc  negate 
seni?  ' 

Nam  si  V.  Antonio  patuisset  Gallia,  si  oppressis  municipiis  et 

coloniis  imparatis  in  ilia®  ultima®  Gallia®  penetrare  potuisset, 

4 

auantus  rei  publicae  terror  impenderet? 

Quanto  eninr  honore  laetitia,  gratul3tione  in  hoc  templum  ingredi 
detent  illi  ipsi  huius  urbis  iiberatores,  cum  hesterno  die  propter 
eorum  res  gestas  we  ovantem  et  prope  triumphentem  populus  Romanes  in 
Capitoliu®  domo  tulerit,  dorrutr  inde  reduxerit? 

It  is  noteworthy  that  in  the  first  three  instances  quantus  appears  at  the 
close  of  the  sentence;  a fact  which  indicates  clearly  that  it  shares  the 

^15. 3.5.  "2.4*. 119. 

^2. 12.  30.  *5. 


14.5. 12. 


. 


' 


47 


nature  of  an  exclamation.  Guslis  occurs  three  times, as 

Cuale  autem  benefioium  est,  quod  te  abstinueris  nefario  scelere?^ 


Cualis  igitur  hostis  hsfcendus  est  is,  a quo  victore  si  cruciatus 

r 

atsit,  mors  in  beneficii  parte  numeretur? 


The  last  of  this  class  is  quotus,  which  is  used  but  once  and  in  a disparag- 
ing sense,  as 


Although  usa2e  has  in  sene  instances  reduced  these  interrogative  pro- 
nouns to  colorless  interrogative-indefinites  and  ecquid  even  to  the  level 
of  the  enclitic  -ne,  they  retain  their  pronominal  force  (with  one  possible 

exception)  wherever  they  are  employed  in  the  Philippics.  Upon  examination 

4 

we  can  well  call  them  strengthened  interrogatives  . Ecouid  is  used  three 

times,  ecquis  twice,  ecquo  (adverbially)  once  and  ecquodnam  ( adject ively) 

once.  Their  rhetorical  force  is  closely  related  to  that  of  quis-quest ions 

and  is  easily  noticeable  in  the  following  examples: 

Ecquid  est  quod  tarn  proprie  diei  possit  actum  eius  aui  togatus 

in  re  publics  cum  potestate  impericqae  vsrsatus  sit  ouam  lex? 

Ecquid  reperies  ex  tarn  longa  orations  mea  cui  te  respondere  posse 
£ 

corjf  i das? 

Ecquis  est  igitur  exceptis  eis  oui  ilium  regnare  gaudetant  qui 

7 

illdd  eut  fieri  noluerint  aut  factum  improfcavit? 


Videte  quam  despiciamur  omnes,  qui  sumus  e municipiis,  id  est. 


2 

omnes  plene:  ouot.us  eniic  cuisque  nostrum  non  est? 


Ecquis,  ecquid,  ecquo. 


*******  t*************  ♦*•*♦*♦*** 


. 


. 


' 


1 


Ecquo  te  toe  virtur  provexisset,  ecquo  genus? 

Omnis  est  aisera*servitus;  sed  fuerit  quaejair  necessaria:  ccqucj- 


In  the  following  instance,  which  seems  to  be  an  exception  to  the  com- 
mon usage  of  these  interrogative  pronouns,  ecquid  can  possibly  be  consid- 
ered as  having  lost  its  pronominal  character  and  being  equivalent  to  the 
enclitic  -ne.  Yet  the  opposite  interpretation  is  also  acceptable,  for  re- 
ferre  is  used  in  its  technical  meaning  and  does  not  reouire  an  object.  The 
question  reads: 


Fuius  ego  alienus  consiliis  consul  usus  sum:  tu,  sororis  filiis, 
ecquid  ad  eun  umquaai  de  re  publics  rettulisti? 

It  is  noteworthy  that  in  every  esse  the  anticipated  answer  is  nega- 
tive. That,  however,  is  not  due  to  the  introductory  interrogative  but  to 
the  circumstances  which  admit  only  a negative  answer. 


Phetorleei  questions  introduced  by  interrogative  adverbs  serve  a pur- 
pose similar  to  that  of  questions  introduced  by  interrogative  pronouns.  F.y 
pronouns  reference  is  made  to  a class  of  persons  or  things,  which  the  ora- 
tor strongly  asserts  are  not  to  te  found,  while  the  adverbs  with  a similar 
force  introduce  circumstances  with  reference  to  cause,  place,  time,  or 
manner.  They  are  equivalent  either  to  an  emphatic  denial  of  a particular 
circumstance  or  to  an  emphatic  assertion  of  its  unfairness,  unreasonable- 
ness, inadmissibility,  insolence,  injustice,  etc.  In  the  Philippics  tnere 


Questions  introduced  by  interrogative  adverts 


1 


lz. 31.24 


10.9.19 


r 


; 


49 


are  one  hundred  thirteen  instances  of  rhetorical  questions  introduced  fcy 
interrogative  adverbs,  distributed  ss  follows: 

Cur  in  Questions  (forty-one  tines),  especially  when  a si-clause  pre- 
cedes or  follows,  points  out  the  illegality  of  an  action,  as 

...  cur  J/.Prutus  referente  te  legibus  est  solutus,  si  at  urte 
J , 1 

plus  quan  decern  dies  afuisset? 

Nan  si  mors  legat:  sine  caede  ataue  ferro  nulluu  honored  oesi- 
derat,  cur  decernit  honorem  sepulturae,  qui  rr s x i ;n □ s hafceri  potest 

r 

mcrtuo? 


2 

...  si  accipiendair  (pace®),  cur  non  rogamur? 
or  to  its  inconsistency,  as 

Si  sunt  falsa,  cur  probantur?  si  vera,  cur. venerunt? 


F 


Sed  cum  tarn  atroci  edicto  nos  concitavisset , cur  ipse  non  adfuit? 


4 


Si  severus,  cur  non  in  oaais,  si  miser icors,  cur  non  in  sues? 
A^ain,  in  connection  with  the  utter  insolence  and  injustice  of  Antony’s 
treatment  of  the  senate: 

Cur  armatoruii  corona  senatus  saeptus  est,  cur  me  tui  satellites 
cum  gladiis  audiunt,  cur  valvae  Concordias  non  patent,  cur  homines 
omnium  gentium  maxime  barbaros,  Ituraeos,  cum  sagittis  deducis  in 


7 


forum? 

In  most  cases  these  rhetorical  questions  imply  censure  and  indignation  on 
the  part  of  the  orator  and  are  equivalent  to  impassioned  statements  begin- 
ning with  ”It  is  impossible,  unjust,  wrong,  etc.” 


******************************* 


*9.*.  14. 
,12.7.  1*. 
2.39.100. 


,3.8.20. 

'2  2P  FA 

• • • 

2.44.112. 


/ .1 


Ouii  (thirty-one  times),  very  common  in  all  authors,  is  employe:!  in 
the  sense  of  "cur",  as 


Cuid  enim  gladiatoritus  clamores?  aaid  populi  versus?  auid  I c;r- 
pei  statuse  plausus  infiniti?  auid  duobus  tribunis  plebis,  aui  votis 
adversant  ur?  3 

Cuid  igitur  profectus  est  vir  fort issimus,  me us  conlega  et  f a : i 
liaris,  £.Hirtius  consul?  at  aua  iiifceci  11  itate,  oua  macie?f 
Its  office  is  frequently  to  introduce  rhetorical  questions  in  the  deliter 
stive  subjunctive  implying  disgust,  as 

Cuid  ego  istius  decreta,  quid  rapinas,  quid  hereditatem  poeses- 

i 

siones  datas,  auid  ereptas  proferam? 

Cuid  prandiorum  apparatus,  auid  furiosam  vinolent iam  tua.-u  pro- 

f eram?4 

Cuid  reliquos  clar i ssittos  vires  eo  mm  e mores)? 


So  in  short  expressions  to  mark  a transition,  as 

6 3 .3 

Quid  multa?  Sed  quid  plura?  Quid  iilud? 


In  strengthening  his  ovsn  position,  as 


Sed  quid  singulos  commemoro? 

To  indicate  censure  as  in  cur-questions, 

Si  ut  in  Syrian,  patetat  via  et  certe  neaue  lon^a,  sin  at  ad 

10 

Trebonium,  quid  opus  fuit  cum  legione? 

Quid  ergo  opus  est  novo  consilio,  si  in  re  nihil  omnino  ncvi 

11 

est? 


1.1*. 3*. 

y 13. 14. 2Q. 
/ 

11.2.4. 

7.4.12. 

13.14.30  and  2.45.116. 

2.  2*5- *2. 

3112.1.3. 

2.39.101. 

3. 11. 27. 

$ r“i  - 


- 


" ' ' 


I L il  I 


• « « 


1 


si  postulandarc  (pacerr),  quid  timemus? 


Oui  (nine  times)  in  the  sense  of  "how"  snows  surprise,  displeasure  at 
or  censures  severely  a course  of  action,  which  the  speaker  considers  high- 
ly improbable,  imprudent  or  altogether  cur  of  harmony  aitb  -Roman  ideals,  as 


eodem  materno  genere  soleas  gloriari? 

Naoi  concordiam  civiun  aui  habere  potest,  nullam  cum  habeat  civi- 


Cui  autem  tifci  venit  in  mentem  redigere  in  memorial  nostram  te 

4 

aomi  P.Lentuli  esse  educatum? 

Oh i (eight  times)  anticipates  the  answer  "nowhere".  Cicero  uses  it 
once  in  an  expression  equivalent  tc  his  famous  "0  tempera,  o mores!" 


At  other  times  he  employs  it  to  make  the  absence  of  something  very  promi- 
nent. 

£ 

Ubi  enim  tu  in  pace  consistes? 

Obi  lex  Caecilia  et  Eidia,  ubi  promulgate  trinum  nundinum,  ubi 

7 

poena  recent!  lege  Iunia  et  Licinia? 

Cuo  modo  (five  times)  in  eacn  instance  introduces  rhetorical  ques- 
tions in  the  deliberative  subjunctive,  as 

J 3 

...  quo  modo  aceedat? 

...  quo  modo  aspiciam  mihi  uni  crudel  issinum  hostem,  ut  decls- 

9 

rant  eius  de  me  acerfcissimae  eontiones? 


Gui  autem  evenit  ut  tibi  Julia  natus  ignobilis  videatur,  cum  tu 


2 


tat em? 


pro  di  immort ales!  uti  est  ille  mes  virtusque  iraiorum? 


*12.7.  1*. 


2.7.  18. 

*8.8.2?. 

^2.  24.  07. 


4 


Qym  ' 


"12.8. 19 


X*.  14. 


. 


- 

i 


■ 


£ 

4 


Quo  usaue  (five  tirr.es)  is  employed  in  outbursts  of  an^er  and  implies 
a sort  of  helplessness,  as 

Quo  eniai  usque  tantum  helium,  tam  crudele,  tan  nefariurr  privatis 
consiliis  propul sah it ur? 

r 

Quo  usoue  enim  dices  pace®  te  velle? 

Quo  usque  i^itur  is  qui  omnis  hostis  scelere  superevit  nomine 
2 

hostis  csre’cit? 

Quart  (three  times),  "how",  to  denote  intensity,  is  used  in  questions 
expressive  of  bitter  sarcasm. 

Quart  veri  simile  porro  est  m tot  hcminihus  partial  ofcscuris, 

parti®  adulescent  ibus  neminem  occult  antibus  o-eum  nonien  latere  pctuis- 
4 

se? 

Atque  hoc  quidem  detsstabiie  omen  avertat  luppiter!  ouam  atsur- 

p 

dum  autern,  oui  praeter  fieri  non  potuerit,  petere  eum  consulatum? 

Quando  (three  times)  anticipates  an  emphatic  '’never”. 

Quando  enim  obliviscetur  ulla  posteritas  cuius  scelere  in  hac 

* 

vestitus  foeditate  fuerimus? 

Quern  ad  modum  (twice)  is  translated  by  "ho#"  and  in  questions  in 
which  it  appears  it  refers  not  to  the  manner  in  which  the  action  was  per- 
formed, but  rather  to  its  results,  as 

Quern  ad  modurn  nostrum  hoc  consilium  Cspua  probabit,  quae  tempo- 

7 

ribus  his  Roma  altera  est? 

g 

Quern  ad  modum  ad  nunc  reus  adleget? 


, ? 

r • • 

.,8.2.  17. 

14. 2. 

4 2. 11. 2*. 


,11.^. 11. 

15.  12. 

?12. 3.7. 
"5.5.14. 


■ 

. 


. . 


. . 

. 


P 2 


Cuotiens  (twice),  "bow  often”  is  used  so  that  it  can  hardly  he  dis- 
tinguished from  an  exclamation. 

Cuotiens  te  pater  eius  domu  sua  eiecit,  quotiens  custodes  posuit 

1 

ne  linen  intrares? 

Ouatenus  (once),  ”how  long”,  with  reference  to  tine,  is  used  in  a 
question  that  emphasizes  the  point  that,  had  he  become  a second  Catiline, 
he  could  not  have  retrained  in  power  as  long  as  he  did. 

Cuatenus  (fasces)  haberem? ^ 

Cuo  (once),  ’’whither”,  "wherfi”.  Cicero  drawing  a comparison  between  the 
embassy  sent  to  warn  Hannibal  and  the  one  the  senate  intended  to  send  to 
remonstrate  with  Antony,  shows  the  futility  of  the  latter  procedure  by 
asking: 


Non  enim  ad  Hannibaie®  mittimus  ut  a Sagunto  recedat,  ed  quern 
miserat  olinc  senatus  [-.Valeri urn  ^laccum  et  C.Saebium  Tampilum  qui,  si 
Hannibal  non  pareret,  Carthaginem  iussi  sunt:  nostros  quo  iubemus  ire, 
si  non  paruerit  Antomus?  - ad  nostrum  civem  mittimus,  ne  imperatorem, 
ne  coloniam  populi  Tomani  oppugnet. 

Cuorsum  (once), ’’wither”,  inquires  he  purpose  or  aim  of  Antony’s 
speech. 

Ouorsum  hsec  otiinis  spectat  oratio?  quid  enim  legsti  egerint  non- 
4 

dum  seimus. 

Indirectly  tut  very  forcibly  Cicero  brands  the  speech  as  untimely  and  non- 
sensical as  the  concluding  remark*  shows. 

Unde  (occe;^  ”wheoce", "from  what  source”,  as 

p 

Unde  est  adhuc  helium  tractum  nisi  ex  retariaticne  et  more? 

****************************** 

^2. 19.45.  10. 27.  P*.11.20. 

^14.5.14.  47.9.2^. 


. 


i. 


• • . - 


; 


<=4 


SENTENCE'  QUESTIONS. 


le  now  come  to  the  second  train  subdivision  of  oar  subject,  namely 
sentence-questions.  These  are  introduced  by  the  interrogative  particles 
-ne,  nonne,  or  nurr.  While  the  pronoun  and  adverb  questions  inquire  about 
sotre  particular  person  thing,  or  circumstance,  the  inauiry  of  the  sentence- 
question,  as  the  name  suggests,  applies  ordinarily  to  the  sentence  as  a 
whole,  and  turns  upon  the  action  or  fact  expressed  by  it.  Nearly  all  ques- 
tions of  this  type  are  used  rhetorically,  emphatically  asserting  or  deny- 
ing something,  or  at  least  showing  inclination  toward  a positive  or  a 
negative  answer.  Sometimes  they  elicit  no  answer  at  all,  but  simply  serve 
as  an  introduction  to  the  inquiry  contained  in  the  dependent  clause.  In 
all  there  are  one  hundred  and  twelve  instances. 

-Me. 

The  interrogative  enclitic  -ne  occurs  in  rhetorical  questions  fifty 
times.  Such  questions  are  said  to  be  impartial,  i.e.,  they  do  not  antici- 
pate either  a positive  or  a negative  answer.  Yet  there  are  numerous  exam- 
ples in  which  there  is  a decided  leaning  toward  one  or  the  other.  This 
tendency  is  not  to  be  explained  as  due  to  something  inherent  in  the  tence 
or  word  with  which  -ne  combines,  or  in  the  particle  itself,  but  it  is  to 
be  attributed  rather  to  the  nature  of  the  circumstances  of  each  particular 

r y 

case.  Thus  Videsne?can  mean  "do  you  see?"  or  "don’t  ycu  see?"  but  the  na- 


ture  of  its  response  is  dependent  entirely  on  circumst ancee.  In  the  Philip- 
pics the  psrticle  -ne  is  appended  to  verbs,  adverbs,  pronouns,  and  adjec- 
tives, 

-Ne  with  verbs  (eighteen  times).  In  the  majority  of  these  instances 
(ten)  the  verb  is  in  the  present  indicative;  three  tines  in  the  first  per- 
son, four  tines  in  the  second,  and  three  tines  in  the  third.  Those  of  the 
first  person  incline  toward  a negative  answer  and  are  virtually-  equiva- 
lent to  a negation,  as 

Possumne  igitur  satis  videri  cautus,  satis  providus,  si  me  huic 

itineri  tan  iDfesto  tamque  periculosc  eoimisero? * 

r 

Possuncusne  igitur  in  Antoni  latrocinio  aeque  esse  tuti? 

This  is  easy  of  explanation.  The  speaker  knows  his  own  situation  well  and 
after  pointing  to  the  obvious  dangers  of  the  journey,  he  appeals  to  the 
good  sense  of  the  audience  by  asking,  ’’Can  I be  considered  sufficiently 
careful  and  cautious,  if  I set  out  on  this  journey,  which  is  so  beset  with 
dangers?”  Hence  we  must  admit  that  in  such  instances  the  circumstances 
divest  the  question  of  its  impartial  character.  In  some  of  the  rhetorical 
questions  of  the  second  person  the  orator  draws  attention  to  some  evident 
and  significant  circumstance  and  then  to  make  its  existence  more  apparent 
asks  concerning  it,  as 

Videtisne  refertum  forum,  populumaue  Pomanu*  ad  spem  recuperan- 

2 

dae  libertatis  ereetum?J 

*******  ******************** 

3l2. 10. 

^1 2. 12. 27, 

*.1*.*2. 


This  Question  postulates  8 positive  answer,  and  so  does  the  following  one, 
which  may  be  rendered  in  English  by,  "Don’t  you  know  that  I am  speaking 
about  matters  very  well  known  to  me?” 

Scisne  me  de  rebus  mihi  notissimis  dicere?^ 

In  one  instance  where  -ne  is  appended  to  a verb  of  thinking  in  the  second 
person  the  anticipated  answer  is  negative,  Fy  it  the  speaker  points  out 
the  mistaken  opinion  of  the  person  addressed,  while  the  idea  he  rejects  is 
in  the  accompanying  infinitive. 

Putasne  ilium  immortal it  at em  mereri  voluisse,  ut  propter  armoru® 
hahendorum  licentiam  metueretur? 

In  two  of  the  three  instances  of  the  third  person  the  "nun"  effect  is  very 
prominent.  The  fulfilment  of  the  supposition  in  the  case  renders  only  a 
negative  answer  possible. 

7 

Hac  lege  sublata  videnturne  vobis  posse  Caesaris  acta  servare? 

4 

Possuntne  hae  leges  esse  rat3e  sine  interitu  legum  reliquarum? 
The  third  instance,  on  the  contrary,  is  definitely  inclined  toward  the 
positive. 


f; 

Quid?  de  reliquis  rei  publicse  malis  licetne  dicere? 

The  imperfect  indicative  is  used  tut  once,  and  denotes  recurrence  of  an 

action.  It  is  expressed  with  some  degree  of  indignation. 

Poteratne  fieri  ut  non  prcinde  homines  de  quooue  ut  quisque 
£ 

mereretur  iudicarent? 


1 

r\ 

4 


5.18.45. 

1.15.54. 


Cf. 


***************************** 
Allen  and  Greenough,  5*5, c. 


. 


' 


. 


• • 


p7 

The  future  is  employed  in  four  instances.  They  are  or  the  whole  of  the 
S8noe  rhetorical  character  as  the  ouestions  in  the  present  with  only  the 
shift  in  time. 

Possum  Cassism  vitare,  tenere  Flaminiam:  quid,  si  Anconam,  ut  di- 
cit ur, Ventidius  venerit,  poterone  Ariminum  tuto  accedere?^ 

Ut  omittam  mult itudinem,  L.Visidio,  equiii  Fomano,  bomini  in 
primis  ornato  atque  honesto  civique  semper  egregio,  cuius  ego  excu- 
bias  et  custodies  mei  capitis  eognovi  in  consulatu  tr.eo;  oui  vicinos 
suos  non  cohortatus  est  solum  ut  milites  fierent  sed  etiam  facultati- 
bus  suis  sublevavit:  huic,  inqua®,  tali  viro,  quern  nos  senatus  con- 

r 

sulto  eonlaudare  debemus,  poteritne  esse  pacatus  Antonius? 

The  perfect  is  used  once  in  a -ne  rhetorical  ouestion,  which  is  expressed 
with  considerable  sarcasm. 

Sed  fee  id  te  dedisse  mihi  ouod  non  ademisti,  meoue  a te  habere 

vita®,  quia  non  a te  sit  erepta:  licuitne  mihi  per  tuas  contumelies 

hoc  tuum  beneficium  sic  tueri  ut  tuebar,  praesertim  cum  te  hsec  audi- 
2 

turum  videres?J 

Only  one  instance  is  found  of  -ne  with  the  verb  in  the  subjunctive.  It,  is 
of  the  deliberative  type  and  anticipates  a potential  answer  in  the  nega- 
tive. 

Quid?  Caesarem,  deorum  beneficio  rei  publicae  procreat urn,  dubi- 

temne  appellare  imperatorem?  oui  primus  Antoni  immanem  et  foedam 

crudelitatem  non  solum  a iugulis  nostris  sed  etiam  a irembris  et  vi- 

4 

sceribus  avert  it?  ****************************** 

*12.9.23. 

27.3.24. 

*2.  24. *0. 

4 14. 9.  2P. 


• • 


*• 


- 


-Ne  with  adverbs.  Cicero  appends  -ne  to  adverts  in  rhetorical  ques- 
tions in  eighteen  instances;  to  etiam  five  tiroes,  to  paruro  three  tiroes,  to 
idcirco  two  tiroes,  to  its  two  tiroes,  to  nihil  two  tiro.es,  and  once  each  to 
adeo,  ideo,  numquaro,  and  satis.  The  interrogative  force  is  soroetiroes  cen- 
tered on  the  advert,  soroetiroes  on  the  sentence  as  a whole. 

Etiam  is  used  in  its  ordinary  meaning  ''also*'.  All  the  instances  are 
expressed  with  indignation  and  censure  pointing  out  the  i ropcssibi 1 it y or 
audacity  of  an  action.  In  each  case  the  expected  answer  is  an  emphatic 
"no". 

Vulta  quae  in  libera  civitste  ferenda  non  essent  tulirous  et  per- 
pessi  s on  us,  alii  spe  fcrsitan  recuperandae  libertatis,  alii  vivendi 
nimia  cupiditate;  sed,  si  ilia  tulirous  quae  nos  necessitas  ferre  coe- 
git,  ouae  vis  quaedam  paene  fatal  is  - ouae  taroen  ipsa  non  tulirous  - 
etiarone  buius  iropuri  latronis  fererous  taet errirouro  cr udelissirouroaue 
doroinat uro?  ^ 

Etiarone  ab  hoc  royrroillone  Asiatico  senatus  roandata,  legatorum 

r 

£ 

verba  audientur? 

...et  si  eius  pueritia  pertulerat  libidines  ecruro  aui  erant  In 
euro,  tyranni, etiarone  in  nostros  liberos  doroinuro  et  tyrannuro  coropara- 
bat? 

Farum,  which  is  logically  a negative,  produces  an  effect  very  closely 
akin  to  that  of  nonne,  as 

Parurone  videtur  oroniuro  facinoruro  sibi  euro  Colabella  soeietatero 
**♦♦********************•***.*** 

S.  11.  29. 

^.4.10. 

'l2.3.17. 


59 

initam  confiteri? 

...parumne  haec  significant  incred ibi 1 iter  consent ientem  populi 

Porcani  universi  voluntaterr? 

Idcirco  appears  in  such  Questions  where  the  circumstances  reauire  a 
negative  answer.  The  accompanying  ut-clause  points  out  that  the  course  of 
action  followed  was  not  the  intended  one,  thereby  making  the  real  purpose 
more  outstanding. 

Idcircone  nos  populus  Pomanus  consoles  fecit  ut  in  altissiio 

gradu  dignitatis  locati  rem  publican)  pro  nihilo  bateremus? 

Idcircone  saga  sumpsimus,  arms  cepimus,  iuventute®  otunem  ex  tota 

Italia  excussimus,  ut  exercitu  f lorent issitno  et  maximo  legati  ad 

4 

pacem  m itterent ur? 

Itane  in  *.5.15  looks  backward  and  sums  up  what  is  said  in  the  pre- 
ceding sentence  and  emphasizes  its  truth, "Is  it  not  so?"  The  answer  is 
"Yes".  In  the  other  of  the  two  instances  in  which  itane  is  employed  the 
Question  is  very  sarcastic. 

Itane  vero?  hoc  per  legatos  roge^ dum  est? 

Nihil  in  the  following  auestion  is  used  adverbially.  Its  meaning  is 
"in  no  respects,"  "no£  at  all." 

Quid?  auod  cum  eo  conlega  tulit  auem  ipse  fecit  sua  nuntiatione 

£ 

vitiosuns,  nihilne  ad  auspicia  bonus  augur  pertinere  arbitratus  est? 

ll*. 17.36. 

^l.lp.5*. 

1. *. 14. 

^ 12. 7. 1*. 

,5.10.27. 

5.5.9. 


' 


■ 


Adeo  looks  forward  and  puts  special  emphasis  on  the  decree  of  Antony's 
hardihood. 

Adeone  pudorem  cum  pudicitia  perdidisti  ut  hoc  in  eo  teneplo  di- 
cere  ausus  sis  in  auo  ego  senatum  ilium  qui  quondam  florens  orbi  ter- 
raruir,  praesidebat  consulebam,  tu  homines  perditi3simos  cum  gladiis 
conlocavisti? 

Ideo  also  looks  forward.  The  contents  of  the  Question  elicit  a nega- 
tive answer.  Htb  bitter  sarcasm  Cicero  asks: 

[deone  L.Tarquinius  exactus,  Sp. Cassius,  Sp.  Maelius,  M. Manlius 

necati  ut  mult  is  post,  saeculis  a M.Antonii,  quod  fas  non  est,  rex 

2 

Pomac  const itueretur? 

Numauam  and  satis  are  employed  in  questions  which  center  their  force 
on  the  decree  of  the  advert. 


rem  gesserunt  homicidaene  sint  an  vindices  libertatis? 

Haec  oucnue  tanta  pericula  si  effugerc,  satisne  tutum  reditum 
4 

put at  is  fore? 

->je  with  adjectives  (eight  times).  The  three  instances  of  -ne  ap- 
pended to  a participle  are  counted  with  adjectives.  In  these  ouestions  the 
characteristic  cr  quality  expressed  by  the  adjective  is  the  point  about 
which  the  force  cf  the  interrogation  centers.  Fact  of  the  two  examples 
cited  tend  strongly  toward  a negative  answer. 


Numauamne  intelleges  statuendum  tibi  esse  utruw  illi  aui  istam 


Quid?  illi  tot  immanes  quaestus  ferendine  quos  V. Antoni  exhausit 


domus? 


* 


• Pj  z c 

• « V • 


if 


* 


1 ■ 


... 


*1 

Verecundioremne  cctsd  putemus  in  postulando  fore  quern  fuerit  turn 
cum  nisit  mandata  ad  eenatum?'* 

-Ne  with  pronouns  (six  times).  The  emphasis  is  on  the  pronoun.  In  four 
cases  the  pronoun  is  demonstrative  (is,  three  times,  hoc,  once),  in  two  in- 
definite ( qui squam ) : 

r 

...  isne  qui  exclusus  est? 
has  a ridiculous  effect. 

7, 

...  eorumne  cui  r.Frutum  ofcsidione  cupiunt  libersre? 

The  answer  to  this  is  negative,  demanded  by  circunst ances,  known  to  hearers 
as  well  as  to  the  speaker. 

Cuisquaiine  divinare  potest  quid  viti  in  auspiciis  futurum  sit, 

4 

nisi  qui  de  caelo  servare  const.ituit? 

Here  the  force  of  quisquam  is  very  nearly  th8t  of  the  interrogative  cuis. 
The  answer  is  "Nobody"  or  "No”. 

R 

...  hocine  e maioribus  accepimus  ius  ro^andi? 

This  question  admits  only  a positive  answer.  Nonne  hoc?  etc.  would  have 

produced  the  same  general  effect,  but  Cicero  wished  tc  put  special  emphasis 

on  the  fact  that  it  is  the  law  he  had  just  mentioned  that  is  in  question. 

To  bring  out  the  full  force  of  hocine  we  should  say,'(Ig  this  not  the  law... 

Nonne. 

Questions  introduced  ty  nonne  anticipate  a positive  answer.  Its  posi- 
tive character  is  contained  in  nonne  itself,  for  with  it  we  ask  in  a nega- 
tive way  about  8 negative.  Another  noteworthy  factor  is  that  these  ques- 

^1. 1C. 5^. 

411.15.?8. 

5.82.81. 

° 1.10.  5*. 


. 


*5 


tions  pertain  to  matters  concerning  which  there  is  a harnonious  under- 
standing between  the  orator  and  bis  bearers.  Consecuently  the  bearers  can- 
not gainsay  bis  stateoents  without  at  the  same  time  gainsaying  their  own 
principles  and  knowledge.  A nonne  question,  then,  in  such  ci rcunst ances  is 
much  more  vivid  and  effectivs  than  a -ne  question  would  be,  for  it  brings 
forward  not  arguments  to  gsin  the  hearers’  assent  tut  the  assent  itself. 
Sixteen  instances  of  this  type  are  found  in  the  Philippics.  The  vert  in 
each  case  is  in  the  indicative.  Thus  Cicero  voicing  the  principle  of  every 
sensible  man  asks: 

1 

Nonne  satius  est  multum  esse  auam  ouod  nemo  intellegat  dicere? 
Other  especially  noteworthy  instances  are: 

Quid?  Mecedo  Alexander,  cum  at  ineunte  aetate  res  naximas  gerere 

r 

. ^ 

coepisset,  nonne  tertio  et  tricesimo  anno  ncrtem  obiit? 

2 

Quid?  C.Prutum  nonne  omnibus  sententiis  semper  ornavi? 

Nonne  satis  est  ab  hominitus  virtutis  ignsris  gratiam  bene  meren- 

4 

tibus  non  referi? 

Quid?  ills  cestroru?  V. Antoni  lumina,  nonne  ante  oculcs  proponi- 

tis?^ 

Num. 

Vest  grammarians  agree  that  num  (except  in  early  Latin),  whether  by 
its  own  nature  or  by  force  of  attendant  circumstances,  elicits  a negative 


X 17.48. 
2 


11.14.2*. 

11.*.!?. 


*>  C . 

■#  • . 


answer.  Questions  introduced  by  it  (forty-six  instances)  in  a truly  rhetor- 
ical way  challenge  the  audience  to  contradict  what  the  questions  deny.  The 
challenge,  however,  is  not  made  when  there  might,  rightly  be  any  fear  that 
it  will  be  taken  up.  Accordingly  the  Question  is  put  about  the  absent  ex- 
iles: 

1 

Nurri  oui  exules  restituti? 

These  further  questions  can  be  cited  as  exemplifying  its  force: 


Sed  fee  non  esse:  num  Lstine  scit?  nuns  est  ex  iudicum  genere  et 
forma?  rum,  quod  maximum  est,  leges  nostras  moresve  novit?  num  deni- 


populua  rec  plebem  teneri:  nut*  eas  restitui  posse  censetis? 

In  fifteen  instances,  where  the  verb  is  ir  the  second  person,  Cicero 
expresses  either  his  surprise  or  displeasure  at  the  actions  and  proceeding 
of  those  addressed. 

Sin  haec  levior8  vebis  videntur  quae  sunt  gravissima,  num  etiam 
hoc  eontemnitis  ouod  sensistis  tarn,  caram  populc  Fomano  vitam  A.Hirti 


Quid?  D.Fruti  iudieium,  Quirites,  quod  ex  bodierno  eius  edicto 


perspicere  potuistis,  num  cui  tandem  eontemnendum  videtur? 


2 

cue  homines? 

Num  ouisquam  est  vestrutr  cui  tritum  non  h8beat? 


6 


Leges  statuimus  per  vim  et  contra  auspicia  latas  eisoue  nee 


f uisse? 


Qui  si  legatis  pa  merit  Fomarrque  redierit,  num  umousm  perditis 

7 

civitus  vexillum  quo  concurrent  defuturum  p ut at i s r 


7 


*4 

Ergo  i 1 1 e avunculus:  nurr>  etian  vcs  avunculi  oui  illi  estis  ad- 
sensi?1 

Nuti'  etian  hoc  ( adsignabis) , homo  audacissirte,  ex  Csesaris  con- 

r 

ncentariis? 

Only  one  example  of  this  kind  is  found  inhere  the  verb  after  nun  is  in 
the  subjunctive. 

Nutr  i£itur  eum,  si  tun  esses,  t errerariuir  civeir  aut  crudelem  pu- 
tares,  aut  Q.Vetellum,  cuius  ouattuor  filii  consulares,  P.Lentulum, 
principem  senat.us,  conpluris  alios  summcs  viros  oui  cum  Opimio  con- 

7 

sule  armati  Gtacchun  in  ^ventinum  persecuti  sunt? 

Quin  is  used  only  in  one  instance  to  introduce  a Question.  It  is  vir- 

4 

tually  equivalent  to  an  imperative  , being  in  substance  a curse. 

p 

Quin  tu  abis  in  nialam  pestem  nsalunique  cruciatum? 


*************** ************ 

*8.1.2. 

r 

^2.17.43. 

*8.4.14. 

4Cf.  Lane,  1327  and  1531;  Gildersleeve-Lcdge,  27*. 
'13.21.48. 


DISJUNCTIVE  QUESTIONS. 


Disjunctive  questions  sre  introduced  by  utrun  - an,  -ne  - an,  an 
(where  the  particle  with  the  first  member  is  not  used)  or  an  (where  there 
is  no  first  n'ember).  They  can  be  divided  into  direct  or  complete  disjunc- 
tive and  incomplete  disjunctive  questions.  In  the  former  the  two  alterna- 
tives (or  more  members)  appear,  in  the  latter  the  first  member  is  to  be 
supplied  from  the  context  or  circumstances.  Only  eleven  couplete  disjunc- 
tive questions  sre  employed  in  the  Philippics.  £11  of  them'  are  used  rhet- 
orically. 

Complete  Disjunctive  Questions. 

Utrun:  - an. 

Six  questions  of  this  type  are  found,  one  of  which  is  doubtful.  Though 
disjunctive  questions  sre  of  themselves  neutral,  yet  in  each  case  that 
appears  in  the  Philippics  the  first  member  by  force  of  circumstances  an- 
ticipates a negative  answer,  while  the  alternative  is  emphatic  in  its  ex- 
pectation of  assent.  The  alternative  conveys  the  crater's  view.  Thus  when 
Cicero,  who  was  bitterly  averse  to  the  idea  of  sending  envoys  to  £ntcny, 
then  master  of  the  situation,  had  proven  by  many  and  conclusive  arguments 
that  £ntony  was  dangerous  to  the  welfare  of  the  Republic  ana  was  virtu- 
ally adjudged  a public  enemy  by  the  provisions  of  the  senate  and  people, 
he  puts  this  question  to  the  senators: 


■* 


. 


Ad  hunc  utrua  legates  an  legiones  ire  oportebat? 
Other  noteworthy  instances  are: 


1 


Haec  utrun  tanden  lex  est  an  legun  onniuir  dissolutio? 


r 


Utruir  hoc  bellum  non  est,  an  est  tantuo  tellur  quantua,  nurrouaa 


2 


fuit? 

The  doubtful  exanple  referred  to  above  reads: 

Utrua.  igitur  aequins,  utruBt  aielius  rei  publicae  fuit  Cn.Ponpeiurr 

4 

an  sectorea  Cn.Poaipei  vivere  Antoniui? 


Here  utruir  seen  s to  retain  Biore  of  its  original  force  and  to  stand  in 
apposition  , as  it  were,  with  the  following  disjunctive  Cn.Poa'peiuir  an.,. 
AntoniuB:,  the  enclitic  -ne  being  omitted  with  Fonjpeiutr.  Of  course  it  can 
also  be  looked  upon  as  an  ordinary  disjunctive  Question. 


These  questions  (three  instances)  have  the  same  rhetorical  effect  as 

the  preceding.  They  do  not,  however,  exclude  mere  possibilities,  as  utrum 

p 

- an  questions  usually  do  . In  the  following  instance  Cicero’s  stress  in 
branding  Antony  a direptor  et  vexator  urbis  is  unmistakable. 

7 

Custosne  urbis  an  direptor  et  vexator  esset  Antonios? 

Another  similar  instance  is: 

Cued  si  ipsa  res  publics  iudicaret  aut  si  omne  ius  decretis  eius 

0 

st at ueret ur,  Antonione  an  Fruto  legiones  populi  Romani  8diudicaret? 


-Ne  - an. 


'8.2.7. 

S?.14.*0. 

n 


.Utrum  from  uter,  which  of  two. 
Vadvig,  4*2,  obs.  2. 


-7 


One  Question  is  found  where  a third  member  with  an  is  introduced, 

Solusne  aberan,  an  non  saepe  irirus  freauentes  fuistis,  an  ea  res 
agebatur  ut  etiam  aegrotos  deferri  oporteret?^ 

The  circumstances  of  this  incident  compel  a negative  answer  to  he  given 
to  the  first  member,  a positive  to  the  second,  and  a negative  to  the  third, 
This  is  the  only  instance  in  Cicero’s  orations  where  -ne  is  followed  by 

r 

more  than  one  sn.  The  third  member  is  so  unrelated  to  the  preceding  ones 

7 

that  Long  was  induced  to  put  a Question  mark  after  fuistis  and  consider 
the  last  member  a separate  Question,  It  possesses  a strong  sarcastic  ele- 
ment, so  prevalent  in  an  questions. 


— - - an 

4 

Only  in  two  instances  1?  the  interrogative  particle  in  the  first  al 
ternative  omitted  by  Cicero. 

Ncs  sustulimus  an  contra  lege  ccnitiis  centuriatis  lat.a  sanxi- 

<= 

mus? 

Cascas  dican)  an  Ahalas? 

These  questions  imply  that  the  orator  stamps  zs  impossible  or  absurd  the 
the  first  member,  which,  like  many  simple  questions  without  an  interroga- 
tive particle,  is  uttered  with  vehement  exasperation.  It  is  especially 
true  of  the  second  Question,  where  Cicero  speaking  for  the  entire  senate 
resents  the  idea  of  being  accused  of  unconstitutional  legislation. 


Ji.s.n. 

Several  instances  of  it  occur  in  his  philosophical  works. 
Ciceronis  Oraticnes  Vcl.  4,  p.  4^4. 

See  last  Question  under  utrum  - sr  (above). 

,1?.  I*. 51. 

~5.11.57. 


*3 


Incomplete  Disjunctive  Cuestions. 


An, 

The  interrogative  particle  sn  always  stands  at  the  beginning  of  a 
Question.  Questions  introduced  by  it  sre  commonly  called  disjunctive,  but 
they  cannot  be  considered  complete  dis jonct ives.  Whatever  disjunctive 
force  they  have  is  necassarily  weak  or  else  the  first  member  would  be  ex- 
pressed. The  effect  of  the  suppressed  member  can  be  felt,  but  the  diffi- 
culty of  formulating  it  in  actual  words  is  not  recognized  till  the  etteapt 
is  made.  It  can  be  felt  from  the  circumstances  that  the  speaker  emphasizes 
as  true  or  false,  possible  or  impossible,  etc.  all  other  imaginable  alter- 
natives to  the  one  he  mentions,  as 


An  ut  tu  Narbone  mensas  hospitum  convomeres  Dolabella  pro  te  in 

. * J 

Pispania  dimiearet? 


An  potest  cognatio  proprior  ulla  esse  ouao  patriae  in  Qua  paren- 

2 

tes  etiam  cent inentur? 

An  ille  id  faciat  auod  paulo  ante  decretum  est,  ut  exercitum 

citra  f lumen  Pubiccnem,  oui  finis  est  Galliae,  educeret,  durn  ne  pro- 

2 

pius  u'rbem  Pornsm  CC  milia  admoveret? 

In  many  instances  very  little  need,  if  any  at  all,  is  felt  for  the 
so-called  suppressed  member.  The  sn  question  sinply  strengthens  what  was 
said  in  the  previous  sentence,  by  showing  the  weakness,  unsoundness,  ab- 
surdity, or  impossibility  of  any  opinion  that  might  possibly  suggest  it- 
self. The  contrast  between  the  views  the  orator  supports  and  those  ex- 
pressed in  the  an  question  is  very  marked  and  the  latter  are  shown  to  be 
wholly  untenable,  as 


'5.50.7*. 


- tz 

> • J • 


* * * * 


....  ii  - - 


1 

/>n  C.Tretonio  ego  persuasi?  cui  re  suadere  auiderr  ansus  sui. 

/n  ire  censetis,  petres  conscripti,  ouod  vcs  inviti  secuti  estis, 
decreturum  fuisse,  ut  perentalia  cum  supplicat  ior.itus  miscerent ur,  ut 
inexpiabiles  reli^iones  in  rem  publican  inducerentur , ut  decerneren- 

r 

£ 

tur  suppl icaticnee  aortuo? 

/in  in  senatu  facilliae  de  ire  distrahi  posse  credidit?  oui  ordc 

clarissitnis  civikus  bere  gestae  rei  publicae  t est iacnium  rrultis,  tr  1 1 i 

z 

uni  eonservatae  dedit. 

[n  the  fore^oin^  Questions  the  anticipated  answer  is  negative,  while  in 
others  where  the  orator’s  opinion  is  contained  in  the  an  question  the  re- 


verse is  true,  as 


An  de  interitu  rei  pufclicae  queri  non  debui,  ne  in  te  in £r at  us 
4 

v iderer? 

£n  tu  ilia  in  vestibule  rostrs  cum  aspexisti,  domum  tuano  te  in- 
troire  put as? 

/in  e£o  non  provideem  civibus  meis? 

The  majority  of  an  Questions  reveal  more  or  less  intense  feelings  of 

surprise,  indignation,  sarcasm,  ridicule  and  the  like.  See  those  of  the 

preceding  class,  tc  which  the  following  may  be  added. 

/n  faces  admovendae  sunt  quae  excitent  tantae  causae  irdermi- 
7 


enteir? 


A n equites  Romanos  smpleetetur  ? 


1 


2.11.57. 

’l.*.l*. 

\ 

r *1  r 

j. 


r 2 £ 


* * : 


q qq  4s 

5.15.50. 

'7.8.51. 


V ’ .>  > 


7Q 

An  Antorias  potius  ornaren,  non  node  susrun  familiarun  sed  Po- 

1 

Irani  nominis  probra  etque  dedecora? 

Special  emphasis  is  obtained  by  "an  auisouam". 

r 

. ^ 

An  vero  quisquam  dutitafcit  appellare  Caesaren  lmperatorem? 


111. 14.8*. 
'l4.10. 28. 


* ■ 


QUESTIONS  WITHOUT  PARTICLES. 


After  we  have  discussed  word  Questions  and  sentence  ouestions,  we 
cone  to  the  third  type  (if  it  tray  be  called  so),  namely  questiors  without 
introductory  particles.  Strictly  speaking  they  are  sentence  Questions,  as 
accepted  teaching  classifies  then.,  yet  the  fact  that  no  particle  appears 
in  then  and  the  ease  of  considering  then  apart  from  the  ethers  recommends 
such  a division*  Moreover  there  is  something  in  their  nature  that  distin- 
guishes most  of  then  from  the  ordinary  sentence  question.  The  absence  of 
the  particles  is  supplied  by  proper  inflection  of  the  voice.  They  are  con- 
iron  in  those  departments  of  literature  where  the  dramatic  element  finds 
place,  as  orations,  tragedies,  comedies,  dialogues,  etc.  Perhaps  it  is  not 
an  exaggeration  to  say  that  their  use  is  common  to  all  languages.  Cicero 
employs  them  to  the  number  of  one  hundred  sixty  in  the  Philippics^.  As  in 
questions  introduced  by  an  the  word,  about  which  the  inquiry  centers,  fol- 
lows immediately  after  the  particle,  sc  here  the  emphatic  word  is  usually 
first,  but  in  long  sentences,  whose  first  member  only  prepares  the  way  for 
the  Question  at  the  close,  it  is  frequently  last.  We  need  not,  thee,  try 
to  subdivide  these  questions  but  simply  examine  the  use  Cicero  makes  of 

r 

them. ^ 

******  ************************ 

1 

^One  hundred  eighty-six,  if  those  after  Quid?  are  counted. 

There  has  not  as  yet  been  found  an  adequate  basis  for  classifying 
these  questions.  No  elements  are  so  prominent  in  them  as  to  make  any  clear 
cut  subdivision  of  them. Morris  ( A. J.p. vol. 11, p. 14P  ff.  ) classifies  them, 
according  to  the  position  of  the  verfc;whetfcer  it  stands  first  or  towards 
the  end  of  the  auest ion; Grabenst eir, p.p?  ff.by  the  presence  or  absence  of 
non; and  Wolff, p. PI  f f. according  to  the  purpose  the  author  had  in  view. 


. 


• ' ■*'  ■ 


■ • _J  . " • 


y -- • 


j ■■  ~ 


■ 


■ •• 


z 

. • • . • - ■ • •• 

■» 

■t. 


7 


It  aay  be  said  at  the  start  that  in  many  instances  it  is  impossible 
to  decide  with  any  satisfactory  degree  of  accuracy  whether  these  sentences 
are  questions,  exclamations,  or  declaration  in  an  ironical  sense*,  f.  few 
of  them  will  illustrate  the  point. 

In  huius  me  tu  consili  societatem  tamquarr  in  equurr  Troianurr  cum 
principitus  includis?^ 

0 audacian  immanent  tu  etiair  ingredi  illarr.  donum  ausus  es,tu  illjd 

sanctissimum  limeri  intrare,  tu  illarum  aedium  dis  penatitus  os  ia— 

2 

purissinum  ostendere?’ 


4 

Et  tu  in  Caessris  menoria  diligens,  tu  ilium  amas  mcrtuum? 
Ad  hunc,  di  honi!  legates  mitti  placet? 


Cuius  igitur  singularen  prudentiam  admiramsur  eius  stultitian 


£ 


t in:  emus? 

7 

Servituten  pacem  vocas? 

Closely  akin  to  the  foregoing  are  questions  in  which  the  orator  re- 
peats the  thought  of  a preceding  sentence,  whether  it  contains  his  own 
opinion  or  that  of  another.  TJe  thereby  draws  attention  to  a view,  which  he 
considers  incorrect,  and  which  the  audience  has  already  sensed  to  be  un- 
sound. Fy  the  repetition  he  makes  its  falseness  more  apparent  and  conse- 
quently it  ftiust  be  rejected  as  impossible. 

p 

Occultatum  dico?'’ 

9 

Charyfcdim  dico?  quae  si  fuit  animal  unum  fuit? 


*Cf .Lane, 1502; Rale  and  Fuck, £23,?;  Harkness, 35^ , rote  1; Allen  and 
Creenpugh, ??2, a. 


2.  27. *8. 


,5.9. 2p. 
7P.  18. PG. 
3.4.12. 


OP 


2.  4?. 3 10 


Leg atos  decernis? 


1 


n 


Ego  1 arista? 


z 


These  Questions  are  frecuently  very  passionate  , especially  those  in  the 
second  person.  In  then  the  orator  upbraids  the  person  addressed  in  stirr- 
ing, sarcastic  terns,  as 

4’ 

Et  vos  acta  Caesaris  defenditis  oui  leges  eius  evertistis? 

Ergo,  ut  te  cat  am  it  un,  nec  cpinato  cun,  te  osten  di  sses,  praeter 
spent  irulier  aspiceret,  idcirco  urben  terrore  nocturno,  Italian  n.ul- 


torun  dieruir  n,etu  perturbasti? 

Eaveas  tu  hosti?  ille  litteras  ad  te  rrittat  de  sua  spe  rerun 

secundarum;  eas  tu  laetus  proferas,  recites,  describendes  etiair  des 

inprobis  civitus,  ecrun  augess  anincs,  bonorun.  spen  virtutenoue  de- 

bilites,  et  te  consularen  aut  senatoren,  denique  civeaj  putes? 

Haec  tu  nandata,  L.Piso,  et  tu,  L. Philippe,  principes  civitatis 

7 

non  dice  aninjc  feme  verunt  auribus  accipere  potuistis? 

Soniet imes  the  speaker  is  carried  off  by  indignation  and  even  stoops 
to  abusive  language,  especially  when  he  is  conscious  that  his  earnest  ap- 
peals and  sincere  injunctions  retrain  unheeded,  as 

Tu  auten,  onniun  st ult issime,  non  intelligis,  si,  id  quod  ire 
arguis,  voluisse  interfici  Caesarea  crinen  sit,  etien  laetatua  esse 


rrorte  Caesaris  crinen  esse? 

Haec  ut  conligeres,  bono  sntent  issin  e,  tot  dies  in  aliens  villa 

9 

declamsst i? 


a 


******** 


3-9.  V. 

'l7. 39.^0. 

3 ilder sleeve -Ledge, 4P3. 


5. 21.77. 


9 


d 1.8. 39. 


.. 


. 


74 


Tu  mentis  compos,  tu  non  constringendus? 

Vany  of  these  questions  are  trade  up  of  two  parts,  the  first  usually 
leading  up  to  the  second,  in  which  the  inquiry  is  embodied.  Meng  the  most 
common  of  this  type  are  those  beginning  with  a demonstrative  or  a relative 
pronoun.  They  are  used  in  expressing  surprise,  astonishment , conplaint, 
rebuke,  anger,  end  such  like  feelings,  es 

Et  eius  viri  nomine  me  insectari  audes  cuius  me  amicum,  te  sec- 

r 

tore®  esse  fateare? 

Qua®  lege®  igitur  se  augur  dicit-  tulisse  non  node  tonante  love 
sed  prope  caelesti  clanore  prohibente,  hsne  dubitsbit  contra  auspi- 
cis  lata®  eonfitrei? 

Cuius  igitur  singularum  prudentia®  admiramur,  eius  stultiaa 
4 

1 1 ®emu  s? 

Qui  frequent issimi  in  gradibus  Concordise  steterunt,  qui  nos  ed 
libertate®  recuperandan  excitaverunt , arms,  saga,  bellu®  flagitave- 
runt,  ace  une  cutr  populo  Fcmanc  in  conticne®,  vocaverunt,  hi  £ nt or i u® 
diligent  et  cu®  his  pace®  servafcit  Antonios?' 

In  eighteen  instances  a conditional  clause  either  precedes  cr  fellows 

the  ®e®ber  which  contain?  the  inquiry. 

Si  te  q unici pioru®  non  pudebat,  ne  veterani  ouide®  exercitus? 

Sed  si  te  laus  adlicere  ad  recte  faciendum  non  potest,  ne  netus 

7 

quide®  a fcedissinis  factis  potest  avccare? 

At  nos  conantis  servitutis  vincla  rumpere  impediet  si  ouis  ve- 

3 

ter a nos  nolle  dixerit? 

**************************** 

1 4 7 

2 Q7  6.1?.FC.  2. 4. 11^. 

>.1K.*9.  >.3.21.  '10.9.15. 

>.2.s.  ^2. 


' V 


7^ 


Frequently  questions  in  the  first  person  (when  Cicero  includes  hiir- 
self  with  the  senate)  are  exclamatory  in  character  snd  criticize  severely 
some  proposed  measure. 


Ergo  haec  urc,  verum  optino  auctore  done  prolata  defend  irrue:  eas 
leges  quas  ipse  nobis  inspectantitus  recitevit,  pronunt iavit,  tulit, 
quitus  latis  gloriebatur  eiscue  legibue  rem  publican!  contineri  puta- 
bat,  de  provinciis,  de  iudiciis,  eas,  inquam,  Caesaris  leges  nos  oui 
defendimus  acta  Caessris  evertendas  putan‘us?^ 

Nos  ad  civern  mittimus  re  imperatorem  populi  Romani,  ne  exerci- 
turn,  ne  colonies  circumsedeat , ne  oppu.gnet,  ne  agres  depopuletur. 


ne  sit  host  is? 

Ft  ad  eum  legates  de  pace  mitten  us  qui  pacis  nuntics  repudiavit 
Especially  forceful  are  questions  accompanied  by  non,  which  nega- 
tives the  principle  word.  They  have  the  effect  of  nonne,  but  non  is  rot  a 
part  of  nonne  with  -ne  emitted.  Twenty-seven  instances  are  fouhd  in  the 
Phi 1 i ppics. 

Cn.PomitiuD  non  patris  interims,  clarissimi  viri,  non  evunculi 

mers,  non  spoliatio  dignitatis  ad  recuperandam  libertatem,  sed  mea 

4 

auctorit.8S  excitavit? 

p 

L.Frutus  regem  superbum  non  tulit? 

V.  vero  ^ntonius  non  is  erit  ad  quern  omni  mctu  concursus  fiat 
* 

civiun  perditorurr? 

Non  recordamini,  per  deos  immortelesl  quas  ir.  eos  sententias 
7 

dixerit is? 

1 


1. 10.24. 

10.27. 

12. 11. 


‘2.11.27. 

'2  4 0 
7.4.13. 


lz.7.p. 


O Vi 


* 


' 


7* 


Questions  with  Quid? 

Tie  nay  here  consider  questions  before  which  we  find  quid?  indicating 
a rhetorical  rise.  Quid?  does  not,  like  other  interrogati ves,  introduce 


the  question  that  follows  upon  it.  It  is  strictly  a question  by  itself, 
whose  English  equivalent  is  "Trbat?".  [n  all  instances  quid?  can  be  ex- 
plained as  an  interrogative  pronoun  (sonetirr.es  as  an  adverb  aeaning  w Why? *9 

independent  of  the  following  question  with  scire  such  verb  as  dicere,  cen- 

1 

sere,  or  seqni  understood.  In  translation,  however,  the  two  questions  nay 
be  united  into  one  proposition.  Quid?  is  expressed  with  apparent  surprise 
and  frequently  with  indignation.  It  serves  to  make  the  audience  rcore  at- 
tentive to  what  the  orator  is  about  to  say  and  implies  the  iapossibi 1 ity 
of  accepting  a previous  or  following  opinion.  In  this  sense  it  can  be  said 
to  introduce  a question.  Vie  shall  divide  the  fifty  instances  into  two 
classes,  according  as  the  question  that  follows  is  or  is  not  introduced  by 
an  interrogative. 

Quid?  followed  by  interrogative  pronoun  (five  tines). 


Quid?  Poirpeii  tertius  consulatus  in  ouibus  ectis  constitit? 


r 


Quid?  si  etipir  scripsi*.  ad  te  Caesar  ut  redderes,  quid  satis  po 


test  dici  de  tanta  irnpadent  ia? 


Quid?  cuno  decrevistis  at  consules,  alter  atrbove,  ad  belluir  pro- 

4 

f iciscerentur,  quod  erat  bellu.t,  si  hosiis  Antonias  non  erat? 


. 


■ 


1 


77 


Quid  fcllowed  by  -ne  Question  (five  tiroes). 

Quid?  de  reliquis  rei  pufclicae  aalis  licetne  dicere?^ 

Cuid?  illi  tot  iroroanes  quaestus  ferendine  quos  V.  Antoni  exhausit 


esse  rationed? 

Cuid?  followed  fc.y  nonne  quest  ion( nine  tiroes). 

4 

Cuid?  turn  nonne  cesserunt? 

Cuid?  ilia  castrcruro  V. Antoni  luiina,  nonne  ante  oculos  propo- 


(■ 

Cuid?  legionuro  nostrarum  nervos  nonne  his  consiliis  incidirous? 

Quid?  followed  by  nuro  question  (four  tiroes). 

Cuid?  D.Fruti  iudiciuro,  Quirites,  quod  ex  hodiernc  eius  edieto 

7 

perspicere  potuistis,  nuro  cui  tandero  cont eronsnduro  videtur? 

3 

Quid?  nos  a patnfcus  nuro  aliter  accepirous? 

Cuid?  followed  by  a cur  question. 

. 9 

Cuid?  legio  toartia:  cuid?  ouarta,  cur  laudantur? 

It  will  be  noticed  that  all  the  questions  cited  imply  intense  feelings  on 

the  part  of  the  orator,  who  clearly  perceives  the  right  or  wrong,  of  the 

issue  before  hit,  and  with  all  his  powers  either  defends  or  opposes  it. The 

quid?  portion  of  the  question  shows  that  he  dees  not  agree  with  the  views 

expressed.  This  is  likewise  true  of  cases  where  the  question  following 

quid?  has  no  interrogative  word  to  introduce  it.  Of  the  latter  type  there 


don  us? 


Quid?  vitae  censetisne,  patres  conscripti,  hafcendam  m i h i aliquam 


2 


nit  is? 


1 „ • 

14. 


4 


7 


15.3.21 


/ ’ 


* 


* 


- 


♦ 


73 

are  twenty-six  instances,  as 

Quid?  isti  ordini  iudicatus  lege  lulia,  etiam  ante  Fompeia, 

1 

Aurelia  non  patefcat? 

r 

£ 

Quid  tua?  quod  ita  erit  gestun:,  id  lex  erit? 

Quid?  c uk  Prut  urn  online  quodain  illius  generis  et  ncneinis  nstun  ad 

real  publics®  literandaai  exercit  unique  eius  pro  libertate  populi  Fomani 

bellurr  ^erente®  cun*  Antonio  prov inciamque  fidelissi  tque  optimum, 

Pallia®,  laudibus  ampl issimis  adfecistis,  tut  non  hosten  iudicastis 
2 

Antoniutu? 

Quid?  cum  dilectus  haberi  tota  Italia  iussistis,  cum  vacationes 

4 

omnis  sustulistis,  turn  ille  host  is  non  est  iudieatus? 


* * * * + * ' 


******* t*** 


*1.3.20. 

*1.10.2*. 

*7.4.11. 

4 

7.4. I2. 


79 


V.  QUESTIONS  WITH  EMPHASIS. 


the  various  means  the  Romans  employed  for  rendering  a question 
more,  forcit le  are  the  strengthening  words  tandem  and  the  interrogative  en- 


Rence they  are  by  their  nature  well  fitted  to  stand  in  questions  expressed 


rests  cn  the  word  that-  precedes  them,  and  yet  effects  the  question  as  a 
whole.  Frequently  they  carrot  be  rendered  in  the  English  question.  Tandem 
is  used  fourteen  times.  In  his  titter  opposition  to  Antony’s  proposal, 
whereby  any  future  criminals  would  secure  indemnity,  for  "id  fertur  re 
quis  omn i no  umquam  istis  leg i bus  reus  List”,  Cicero  exclaims  *i.i.  im p a— 
t ience: 


Other  in  stances  of  this  kind  are: 

Rac  ille  crudelitate  imtutus,  cum  multo  bonis  omnibus  venirst 
iraticr  quam  iliis  fuerat  quos  trucidarat, cui  tandem  nostrum  aut  cui 


clitic  -nam*.  Tandem  means  "at  length”,  "finally”  and  -nam  "pray",  "then". 


with  eagerness  and  impatience  . The  emphasis  gained  by  these  words  usually 


Paec  utrum  tandem  lex  an  leg  urn  omnium  dissolutio? 


4 


omnino  tono  pepercisset? 


. 


(f  ■ 


Honesta  oratio,  sed  its  si  bonos  et  utilis  et  e re  publics 


civis:  sin  eos  qui  nstura  cives  sunt,  voluntste  hostes,  salves  velis, 

1 

Quid  tandem  intersit  inter  te  et  illos? 

ged  si  principatus  a^eretur,  quern  n.umquam  expet  ivi,  oui  i tandem 


mihi  esset  optatius? 

The  interrogative  enclitic  -nan  is  weaker  than  tandem  and  is  appended 
to  pronouns  in  three  instances, 

Guonam  meo  fsto,  patres  conscripti,  fieri  diesis  ut  nemo  his  an- 
nis  vi^intirei  publicae  fuerit  hostis  oui  non  bellun  eoden  tempore 


mi  hi  quooue  indixerit? 


4 


Ouinsai  locus  capietur? 


' • 


31 


CUFST rOMS  WITH  [PONY. 

Trcny  as  a figure  of  thought  is  s sort  of  humor  or  light  sarcasm  in 

which  the  implication  is  the  opposite  of  the  literal  sense  of  the  words. 

Scheller  writes:  "Porsan  ironie  its  licet,  breviter  definire,  ut  in  eo  con- 

sislat,  si  aliud  cogitamus,  aliud  dicimus,  ita  tamer,  ut,  ouid  proprie 

1 

cogitemus,  coritextu  alicque  mode  dec  1 aret ur. " Quintilian  makes  clear  the 

distinction  between  irony,  the  trope  and  irony,  the  figure  of  thought: 

I n duobus  demum  verbis  est  ironia,  ergo  etiam  brevior  est  tropus.  /t  in 

figura  totius  voluntatis  fictic  est,  apparens  iragis  auam  confessa,  ut  il- 

lic  verba  sint  verbis  diverse,  hie  sensus  sermoni  el  voci  et  teta  interim 

causae  conformatio,  cum  etiam  vita  uriversa  ironiam  habere  videatur,  ous- 

5 

lis  est  vit8  Socratis.  " That  the  figure  of  irony  might  produce  the  de- 
sired effect  Scheller  instructs  us  that  "Non  omnes  res  ironice  exprimi 
possunt,  sed  tartans  eae,  quarum  ratio, magnitude,  utilitas  ita  ncta  est, 
ut  lectori  vel  auditori  statim  contrarians  in  nsentem  venire  debeat."  Of 

its  nature  Quintilian  says:  "Quid  ironia?  nenne  etiam  quae  severissime  fit 

4 

ioei  prope  5enus  est?"  The  joke,  however,  is  frequently  cutting,  Cicero 
^Pr^cepta  St  i 1 i bene  Latini,  p.  lzp. 

‘‘[nst.Orat.  ,9,  2,  4*.  Cf.  also  ibid  44  and  4T.Cicero, Zcad.2,5, 15,  says  of 
the  Socratic  irony: "Ita  cum  aliud  diceret  ataue  sent iret , libent er  ut i so- 
litus  est  ea  dissimul at  ione,  quam  Craeci  vocant  elowvs  fotv. 

Op.cit. , p, 135. 

' [nst.Orar. , 5. *3. 


uses  irony  in  questions  eight  times. 

Quid  babes  quod  iriihi  opponas,  homo  disserte,  ut  Vustelae  taiien 

1 

Seio  et  Tironi  Numisio  videris? 

ec  t u f bo m o sepiens,  non  sclui  eloquens,  spud  eos  quorum  con- 

r\ 

■ 

silio  sapientiaque  gests  sunt  ausus  es  vituperare? 

Quid?  quod  cum  eo  conlegs  tulit  querr  ipse  fecit  sua  nuntistione 

2 

vitiosuiE,  nihilne  ad  suspieia  bonus  augur  pertinere  arbitrates  est? 


1 


2.4.8. 


2.5.11. 


2 


.9. 


QUEST  TONS  H SFFI ES. 


Special  emphasis  is  gained  by  several  rhetorical  questions  in  a ser- 
ies. Frequently  all  of  them  center  their  force  upon  one  point,  with  the 
result  that  the  standpoint  taken  by  the  orator  is  made  irrefutable.  On  two 
occasions  Cicero  uses  a series  of  twelve  questions.  Once  be  employs  this 
device  in  his  opposition  to  the  proposed  sending  of  envoys  to  Antony.  Fe 
argues  that  such  a mission  would  not  only  be  futile  but  even  harmful  and 
contrary  to  Roman  common  law.'  In  the  other  instance  he  urges  the  annul- 
ment of  various  measures  passed  by  Antony,  on  the  Ground  that  they  were 
illegally  carried.  Though  some  of  thei  were  salutary  and  favored  by  Cicero, 
as  abolition  of  dictatorship,  others,  as  the  lex  iudicii,  were  detrimental 
to  public  welfare.  Fe  wished  to  have  all  of  them  annulled  and  then  to  re- 
uses the  desirable  ones  in  a legal  manner,  in  order  to  free  himself  and 
the  senate  from  the  odium  of  takihg  part  in  illegal  and  injurious  legisla- 
tion. This  series  is  worth  quoting. 

Senatus  consulta  falsa  delata  at  eo  iudicavimus:  num  ea  vera 
possumus  iudicare?  Leges  statuimus  per  vim  et  contra  auspicia  Mas  eis« 
que  nee  populate  nec  plebem  teneri:  num  eas  restitui  pcese  censetis? 
Sestertium  septiens  miliens  avertisse  Antonium  pecuniae  publicae  iu- 
dicavistis:  num  fraude  poterit  carere  peculatus?  Imaunitates  ab  eo 


1 


* ' 


• • 


34 

civitatibus,  sacerdotia,  regna  venierunt:  nun-  fijgentur  rursus  eae 
tabulae  quas  vos  decretis  vestris  refixistis?  Cuod  si  ea  quae  deeT*e- 
vi.Tus  obruere  volurtus,  runs  etiaro  jt e ?t- oriano  rerun  delere  possurous? 
Cuando  enirr  obi ivi ecet ar  ulla  posteritas  cuius  scelere  in  bac  vesti- 
tus  foeditate  Fuerimus?  Ut  cent urionun  legionis  Vartiae  Frundisi  pro- 
lusjs  sanguis  eluatur,  run  elui  praedicetio  crudelitatis  potest?  Ut 
'!  e i L j praetercan,  ouae  vetustas  toilet  operun  circus)  Vutinan  taetra 
nonunenta,  sceleris  indicia  1 atrocini que  vestigia?  Huic  igitur  iuf^ertu 
no  atque  itrpuro  parricldae  quid  bsbemus,  per  ddos  i amort ales!  quod 

reirittanus?  An  Gs  1 1 i s-e  ultinan  et  exercitua?  Quid  est  aliud  non  pace® 
facere,  sed  diferre  tellun,  nec  solun  propagare  fcellun  sed  concedere 

etian  Victorian?  An  ille  non  vicerit,  si  quacunoue  condicione  in  banc 

1 

urben  cun  suis  venerit? 


Further  passages  where  several  questions  Follow  in  immediate  series 
are  as  Follows:  nine  in  3. 3. 7-3;  eight  in  7.*.  1*;  7.3.21;  seven  in  5. 17. 
31;  *.4.17;  14. *.14;  six  in  1.10.2*;  l.l*.7*;  2.47.11Q  (twice);  7.2.*;  11, 
3.10-11;  Five  in  2.2.2*;  2. 17.72;  7.9.22;  3.3.21-22;  *.4-3.11-12;  7.*. 17; 
3.2.*;  3.9.27;  11.3.11;  11. 14. 7*;  12.7,1*;  13. *.14;  Four  in  1.3.19;  1.9. 
22-23;  2.4.a;  2.11. 2P;  2.11.27;  2.12.29;  2.2*.*1;  2.27.*3;  2.7C.7*;  2.73. 
3*;  2.39.100  (twice);  2.44.112;  3 2.7 ; p.7.l7;  3.3.14;  3. *.17;  3.9. 2*;  3. 
10-11.  27-23;  *.7.3-9;  *.4.11;  8.4.11-12;  10.3.17;  11.4.9;  11.  12.  27-23;  11, 
1*. 33;  12.2.*;  12.4.9;  13.10.22;  l7. 10. 23;  13.11.2P;  l7. 19.42-4*.  Instan- 
ces where  Fswer  than  Four  questions  appear  in  a series  are  toe  luaerous 
to  be  recorded.  A series  oF  three  Questions  is  Found  Forty-nine  times,  oF 


12.*-*. 12-13. 


* 


two  questions  one  hundred  four  tiroes. 

Especially  notable  in  arrangeroent  and  effectiveness  are  the  series  in 
which  the  interrogative  is  repeated  anaphorically  or  the  general  arran^e- 
roent  of  the  questions  is  the  sarce,  as  the  nurc-quest ions  in  the  series  of 
twelve  quoted  above.  Cur  is  repeated  six  tiroes  in  the  following  instance: 
Tu  horoo  sapiens  et  considerate,  quid  dici3?  si  parricidas  cur 
honoris  causa  a te  sunt  et  in  hoc  ordine  et  apud  populuu  Foroanuro  sero- 
per  appellati?  cur  V.Frutus  referente  te  legibus  est  solutus,  si  at 
urbe  plus  qua®  decero  dies  afuisset?  cur  ludi  ^pollinares  incredibili 
V.Fruti  honore  celebrati?  cur  provinciae  Brute,  Cassio  datae,  cur 
quaestores  additi,  cur  le^atoru®  numerus  auctus?^ 

Seven  interrogat ives,  pronouns  and  adverbs  occur  in  the  following  short 
question: 

Quae  de  illo  viro  Sulle,  ouae  Vurena,  quae  Servilius,  quae  Lu- 
cullus,  qua®  ornate,  qua®  honorifice,  qua®  graviter  saepe  in  senatu 

r 

praedicaverunt? 

The  following  series  of  this  kind  are  also  worthy  of  note:  quis  oc- 
curs five  tiroes  in  ironediate  succession  in  14.4.10;  five  pronouns  in  7.8. 
21;  four  in  1.3.22-2*;  1.1^.**;  quid  four  tiroes  in  l.l^.**;  2.2F.*2;  three 
pronouns  in  3.5.12;  1.102*;  2.7.1*;  2.12.29;  2.25. *1;  2.29.71;  2. **.3*; 
2.39*100;  nuns  four  tiroes  in  5.5.13;  cur  four  tiroes  in  2.44.112;  an  three 
tiroes  in  11.14.3*;  quid?  three  tiroes  in  5.3.7;  12.3.7;  questions  without 
particles,  six  in  7.5.p;  four  in  2.27. *8;  5.9. 2P;  and  three  in  7. A. 13. 

*2.13.11. 

'll. I2.”. 


• • 

. ..  - 1 


Observe  the  force  and  anaphoric  arrangement  in  the  following  question. 

Tantus  igitur  te  stupor  oppressit  vel,  ut  verius  dicam,  tar.tus 

furor  ut  prim urn,  cun'  sector  sis  isto  loco  natus,  deinde  cure  Pompei 

sector,  non  te  exsecratum  populo  Romano,  non  detestsbilem,  non  omnis 

1 

tibi  deos,  non  oinis  homines  et  esse  inimieos  et  futures  scias? 

Nctahie,  too,  is  the  question  in  which  a long  series  of  relative 

clauses  bear  forcibly  upon  the  point  Cicero  wishes  to  make  emphatic. 

Guid  hie  faciet,  si  poterit,  iratus  qui,  cum  suscensere  nemini 

posset,  omnibus  bonis  fuerit  inimicus?  quid  hie  victor  non  audebit 

qui  nullam  adeptus  victoriam  tants  scelera  post  Caesaris  interitum 

fecerit,  refertam  eius  donum  exhauserit,  hortos  compilsverit,  ad  se 

ex  eis  omnia  ornaments  t ranst ulerit , caedis  et  incendiorum  caus.an 

quaesisrit  ex  funere,  duobus  aut  tribus  senatus  consultis  bene  et  e 

re  publics  factis  reliquas  res  ad  lucrum  praedamque  revocaverit,  ven- 

diderit  immunit ates,  civitates  liberaverit,  provincias  universes  ex 

imperi  populi  Pomani  iure  sustulerit  exsules  reduxerit,  falsas  leges 

C. Caesaris  nomine  et  falsa  decreta  in  aes  incidenda  et  in  Capitclio 

figenda  curaverit,  earumque  rerum  omnium  domesticum  merc8tum  insti- 

tuerit,  populo  Romano  leges  imposuerit,  armis  et  praesidiis  populum 

et  magistratus  foro  excluserit,  senatum  stiparit  armatis,  armatos  in 

cells  Concordiae,  cum  senatum  haberet,  incluserit,  ad  le^iones  Prun- 

disium  cucurrerit,  ex  eis  optima  sentientis  centuriones  iugulaverit, 

cum  exercitu  Pomam  sit  ad  interitum  nostrum  et  sa  dispertitionem 

£ 

urtis  venire  conatus? 

***************************** 

1 

r2.  2^. ^5* 

^5. 13.30. 


* • 


■ 


= 


= 


.Distribution  of  Questions  in  the  Philippics. 


Orat. 

Lines 

Quest. 

Total 

Pbet . 
Quest. 

Ind. 

Sub. 

Question 
per  Lines 

1 

4ZP 

*1 

P * 

66 

1 

7 V3 

2 

12*2 

267 

222 

186 

' 93 

P 9 

3 

47P 

*1 

P3 

> y 

4* 

7 

7 4/6 

4 

174 

16 

14 

19 

1 

11  ?/6 

c 

*38 

39 

31 

72 

9 

7 2/6 

* 

220 

42 

96 

22 

* 

6 j/4 

7 

• 277 

F7 

6* 

43 

p 

4 ?/9 

p 

3*1 

p£ 

62 

44 

8 

* Vs 

9 

200 

4 

4 

4 

- 

60 

10 

2 29 

99 

24 

90 

4 

8 2/6 

11 

*512 

*4 

PG 

j 

41 

13 

8 

12 

*79 

74 

70 

*0 

10 

6 Vs 

1? 

4*5 

89 

73 

PQ 

- y 

19 

7 1/6 

14 

42* 

3P 

92 

21 

11 

12  V* 

Total 

*440 

9Z* 

861 

710 

140 

* ^/2 

Note.-  One  question  is  in  the  infinitive  of  exclarcat ion. 


CONCLUSION. 


The  foregoing  table  speaks  for  Itself.  It  will  be  noticed  that,  with 
the  exception  of  the  ninth,  the  Philippics  abound  in  rhetorical  questions. 
This  is  due  to  the  character  of  the  orations  and  to  the  nature  of  the 
rhetorical  question.  The  latter  is  beyond  doubt  one  of  the  aost  forcible 
of  the  figures  of  thought  and  hence  most  effective  in  political  oratory, 
as  this  was  understood  in  the  dsys  of  Cicero.  In  our  day  political  oratory, 
i.e.  oratory  in  a legislative  assembly,  does  not  allow  or  at  least  does 
not  favor  the  bringing  of  emotions  into  play  in  the  manner  in  which  it  is 
done  by  Cicero  in  the  Philippics  . For  the  sske  of  comparison  I have  ex- 
amined some  of  the  speeches  of  reputed  orators  of  our  own  day  and  8 few 

2 

of  the  world-renowned  orators  of  the  past  two  centuries  . The  figures 
represent  the  number  of  lines  and  questions  respectively. 

z 

Bancroft,  George,  "The  Political  Career  of  Andrew  Jackson",  427-57; 

********************************* 

^Recall  the  arguments  in  the  Catilinarian  orations  and  the  legal, 
rather  illegal,  condemnation  of  Catiline  by  the  senate  at  the  instigation 
of  Cicero. 

^These  orations  are  printed  in  the  "Library  of  the  World’s  Pest  Ora- 
tions" and  in  the  "Modern  Floqoenee"  series.  The  lines  are  somewhat  long- 
er than  those  in  the  Oxford  text  of  the  Philippics. 

Delivered  at  Washington,  June  27,  1645. 


* ■ 


- 


. 


> . 


f T-9 


i-  M , / 


- 9 

Rayard, Thos.T. , "A  Plea  For  Conciliation  in  187*"/  8**  - 2*; 

2 

Furke, Edmund, "Conci 1 i at  ion  with  America",  2P2C  -3*; 

7 

Calhoun, John  C. , "Denouncing  Andrew  Jackson",  92  - 7; 

4 

Chamberlain, Jos. , "The  True  Conception  of  Empire",  188  - 1; 

8 

Clark, Champ,  "The  Annexation  of  Hawaii",  *72  - 88; 

" " , "The  Courage  of  Leadership",  124  -1; 

7 

Clay, Henry,  "Dictators  in  American  Politics",  873  - 17; 

8 

Cochran, Wm.E. , "Answer  to  William  Jennings  Frysn",  8*^  - 1; 

9 

Webster,  Daniel,  "Reply  to  Fayne",  1148  - 49. 

Instances  of  this  kind  could  easily  be  multiplied.  The  few  noted  are  fair- 
ly representative  of  Questions  and  occasions  similar  to  the  Philippics  and 
offer  ample  opportunity  for  the  use  of  the  figure  of  interrogation.  And 
yet  we  notice  that  the  nearer  we  come  down  to  our  own  time  the  greater  is 
the  tendency  to  neglect  the  figure  of  interrogation.  In  ancient  times,  on 
the  contrary,  any  emotion  could  be  brought  into  play  in  political  speeches 

***#*. ***********:**■**#**. ******* 

^"Counting  of  Electoral  Votes",  delivered  in  the  United  States  Senate, 
Jan.  2r, 1877.  This  speech  was  delivered  when  the  country  was  in  imminent 
danger  of  the  renewal  of  civil  war,  as  a result  of  the  contested  presiden- 
tial election.  The  nesses  of  the  people  were  greatly  excited.  Fayard  took 
the  lead  in  the  Senate  as  peacemaker  and  though  he  met  with  the  reproaches 
sure  be  visited  in  such  cases,  he  won  his  plea. 

^Delivered  in  the  House  of  Commons,  Mar.  22,1778. 

Delivered  in  the  U-nited  States  Senate  ir.  Jan.  1827. 

4 

Delivered  in  London,  Mar.  81,1397. 

.Delivered  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  June  11,  1898. 

A 

Delivered  Feb.  4,1899. 

7 

Delivered  in  the  United  States  Senate,  Apr.  20,18*4. 

Delivered  in  Madison  Square  Garden,  N.Y. , Aug.  13,139** 

c 

Delivered  in  the  United  States  Senate,  Jan.  2*, 132C. 


. 

- 


and  its  most  appropriate  vehicle  was  the  rhetorical  ouestion. 

It  was  remarked  above  that  the  ninth  Philippic  has  but  few  Questions. 
Its  average  is  one  to  each  fifty  lines.  hi  explanation  for  this  disparity 
can  be  found  in  the  oration  itself.  It  is  not  a phillipic  in  character. 
Pervius  Sulpicius,  a man  highly  reputed  for  his  eminence  as  a statesman 
and  integrity  of  life,  had  been  sent  by  the  senate  on  an  embassy  to  Antony 
and  had  died  on  the  way.  Pis  death  was  8 severe  blow  to  the  senate.  The 
senate  assembled  shortly  after  the  delivery  of  tte  eighth  Philippic  ora- 
tion to  consider  what  honors  should  be  paid  to  the  memory  of  Pulpicius. 
Pansa,  the  consul,  proposed  th3t  he  should  be  granted  a public  funeral  and 
a bronze  statue  placed  in  the  Fostra.  P.Cervilius  opposed  the  latter  part 
of  the  motion;  and  it  was  in  support  of  Pansa’s  decree  that  Cicero  deliv- 
ered the  oration,  which  is  now  called  the  ninth  Philippic,  He  had  not  in- 
tended to  make  a speech,  much  less  a Philippic,  but  only  to  express  bis 
support  of  the  motion,  3s  he  itimself  tells  us  in  the  opening  chapter: 
"quitus  a te  (Pansa)  dictis  nihil  praeter  sentential!  dicerem,  nisi  P.Fer- 

vilio,  clarissimo  viro,  respondendum  puterem,  oui  hunc  honorem  statuae  ne- 

1 

mini  trituendu®  censuit  nisi  ei  oui  ferro  asset  in  legatione  interfectus.  " 
The  unprepared  yet  most,  genial  speech  that  follows  displays  the.  genuine 
feelings  of  the  man  for  the  loss  of  a friend  and  shuts  out,  for  a time  at 
least,  his  bitter  snio.'osity  towards  Antony.  Considering  the  situation  as 
a whole,  it  was  solemn.  Fence  told,  emphatic,  fiery  figures  of  interroga- 
tion would  have,  teen  very  inappropriate. 


******  ************************* 


r 


■ 


91 


The  seventh  Philippic,  in  which  the  rhetorical  ouestions  ere  most 
numerous  (one  to  each  four  end  seven-eightB  lines),  wss  delivered  in  the 
senate  before  the  return  of  ttoe  envoys  who  had  teen  sent  to  Antony.  The 
friends  of  Antony  urged  the  senate  to  make  peace  with  birr,  Cicero  opposed 
them  with  all  his  powers  and  most  urgently  appealed  to  the  senators  not  to 
give  ear  to  then.  Pe  argued  that  such  a peace  was  incompatible  with  free- 
dom, safety  snd  honor.  He  showed  that  it  was  impossible,  tecause  of  the 
mutual  hatred  between  Antony  and  all  loyal  Forcers,  the  letter’s  eagerness 
for  liberty,  the  siege  of  Mutiny,  and  other  factors,  all  of  which  only 
widened  the  breech  between  the  two  parties.  Pe  proved  that  it  was  prompted 
nore  by  self-interest  than  by  devotedness  to  the  state.  It  is  ir,  this  ora- 
tion that  Cicero  makes  the  utmost  attempt  to  have  Antony  declared  a public 
enemy  and  to  bring  on  a state  of  war  against  him.  The  entire  oration  is 
replete  with  Questions  which  display  well  the  impatient,  indignant,  and 
embittered  feelings  of  Cicero. 

The  fourteenth  philippic  was  the  last  oration  against  Antony  and  the 
last  Cicero  was  destined  to  deliver.  Sith  this  outpour  of  triumph,  panegy- 
ric, and  pathos  he  closed  bis  princely  career  of  oratory.  Fut  his  triumph 
was  shortlived.  Antony  and  Oc-tavics  united.  The  power  cf  the  senate  was 
crushed.  The  Philippics  of  Cicero,  like  those  of  Demo sthenes, had  forged  a 
sword  of  deadly  hatred,  which  now  sought  vengeance.  Cicero  fell  a victim 
of  that  indignant  and  patriotic  eloquence  with  which  he  had  so  mercilessly 
and  so  untiringly  lashed  the  enemies  of  his  country.  Juvenal  writes  of  him: 

"Flcquio  sed  uterque  periit  orator;  utrurcque 

Largus  et  exunaans  letho  dedit  ingenii  fons. 

Ingerio  nanus  est  et  cervix  caesa,  nec  umquaii 

1 

Sanguine  causidici  irarijerunt  rcstra  pusilli." 
************************************ 

1Sat.  10. P. 118. 


‘ 


1 


. • 


. 


■ 


FIFLIOGPAPHY. 


Adam-Gould,  Latin  Grammar,  Northampton,  1349. 

Amrronius,  Ee  Differentia  Adfinium  Vocafc ulorum,  Valckeneer,  Leipzig,  1322. 
Anaximenes,  Ars  Fhetorics,  ed.  Spengel,  Leipzi g, 1880. 

Andrews  and  Stoddard,  A Grammar  of  the  Latin  Language,^  ed. , Boston,  13p7. 
Aristotle,  On  the  Art  of  Poetry,  ed.  and  tr. , Fywater,  Oxford,  19G§. 

Rhetoric,  Cope-Sandys,  Cambridge,  1877. 

Fennett,  A New  Latin  Grammar,  Foston,  1918. 

Syntax  of  ^arly  Latin:  The  Verb,  Poston,  1910. 

Foethius,  Commentarii  in  Ciceronis  Topics,  ed.  Orslli,  Turin,  1533. 

Canter,  Rhetorical  Elements  in  Livy’s  Direct  Speeches,  A. J.P. , 38, pp. 12P-K1. 
Caussin,  De  Eloquentia,  Cologne,  1^81. 

Cicero,  Ad  V.Erutum  Orator,  ed.  Sandys,  Cambridge,  1383. 

(or  Cornif icius),  Ad  Herennium  Libri  IV,  ed.  Marx,  Leipzig,  1894. 

De  Oratore,  ed.  Wilkins,  Oxford,  1392. 

The  Philippic  Orations,  ed.  King,  Oxford,  1373. 

Opera,  ed.  Orelii,  Turin,  1373. 

Scripts  Cuae  Vanserunt  Omnia,  ed.  Vflller,  Leipzig,  1397. 

Cope,  Introduction  to  Aristotle’s  Rhetoric,  Cambridge,  1847. 

Demetrius,  On  Style,  tr.  Roberts,  Cambridge,  1902. 

Demosthenes,  Orations,  tr.  Kenedy,  London,  1901. 

Diogenes  Laertius,  De  Vitis,  Dogmatis  et  Apophtegmst is  Cleroru*  Fhiloso- 

phorum  Libri  Decern,  ed.  Huebner,  Leipzig, 1821. 
Dionysius  of  Halicarnassus,  On  Literary  Composition,  tr.  Roberts, London, 

1910. 

Dtfderlein,  Handbook  of  Latin  Synonyms,  tr.  Arnold/  Andover,  1834. 

Drseger,  Historiscfce  Syntax  der  Lateinisehen  Spracbe,  2 ed.,  Leipzig, 1878. 
Ernesti,  Clavis  Ciceroniana,  p ed.,  Ferlin,  1313. 

Gerber,  Die  Spracbe  als  Kunst,  Fromberg,  1871. 

Gi 1 dersl eeve-Lodge,  Latin  Grammar,  3 ed., Foston,  1394. 

Grabenstein,  De  Interrcgat ionum  Enunt i at i varum  Usu  Horatiano, Halle,  1387. 
Hale  and  Fuck,  Latin  Grammar,  Foston,  19G7. 

Halm,  Fhetores  Latini  Vinores,  Leipzig,  1043. 


97 


Hand,  Tursellinus,  Leipzig,  1 3 4 ^ • 

Harkness,  A Latin  Grammar,  New  York,  1392. 

Herrle,  Cuaestiones  Rhetoricae  ad  Elocutionem  Pert inent es,  Leipzig, 1912. 
Einze,  Ce  An  Particula  spud  priscos  Scriptores  Latinos  Vi  et  UsufHalle, 
1397. 

Eoltze,  Syntaxis  Priscorum  Scriptorum  Latinorum,  Leipzig,  13*1. 

Jett,  Attic  Orators,  London,  1S97. 

Key,  Latin  Grammar,  London,  1371. 

Kleutgen,  Ars  Dicendi,  Turin,  187*. 

Kling,  De  Eilario  Fictaviensi  Artis  Rhetoricae  Ipsiusaue  ut  Fertur  Insti- 
tutionis  Oratoriae  Quint iiianeae  Studioso, Freit urA,  1909. 
Krdfhnert,  Pie  Anf Bnge  der  Rhetoric  tei  den  Rflmern,  Memel,  1837. 

Kffhner,  Ausf flhrl iche  Lateinische  Grammat ik,  ^anover,  1912. 

Lane,  A Latin  Grammar,  revised.  New  York,  19C9. 

Laurand,  De  V.Tulli  Ciceronis  Studiis  Phetoricis,  Paris,  1907. 

Longinus,  On  the  Sublime,  ed.and  tr.  Foberts,  Cambridge,  1399* 

De  Subl imitate,  ed.and.tr.  Weiske,  Leipzig,  1909. 

Madvig,  A Latin  Grammar,  tr.  fcoods  and  Thacker,  p ed.,  Poston,  1877. 

Opuscula  Academica,  2 ed. , Copenhagen,  1337. 

Mayer,  Theophrasti  Peri  Lexeos  Libri  Fragmenta,  Leipzig,  1910. 

Monse,  Veterum  Rhetorum  de  Sententiarum  Figuris  Doctrins,  Vratislav,  13^9. 
Vorawski,  De  Rhetoritus  Latinis  Observat iones,  Cracow,  1392. 

Morris,  On  the  Sentence-question  in  Plautus  and  Terence,  A.J.P.,  10,pp.997- 
4^;  11, pp.  l*-54;  145-131. 

Voczynski,  De  Titi  Livi  ...  Flccutione  Quaestiones,  Deutch  Krone,  1901. 
Naegler,  De  part icularum  Usu  apud  L. Annaeua  Senecam  Philosophum,  Ealle,1339 

Oltricht,  De  Interrogationitus  Disiunetivis  et  An  &artic Usu  apud  Taci- 

turn, Rails,  1333. 

Plato,  Alcibiades,  ed.  Purnet,  Oxford,  19CP. 

Quintilian,  Inst itut iones  Oratoriae,  ed.  Meister,  Prague,  1837. 

Roby,  A Grammar  of  the  Latin  Language,  2 ed.  London,  137P. 

Scheller,  Praecepts  Still  Fene  Latini,  Leipzig,  1 ^34, 

Schnalz,  Lateinische  Syntax  and  Stilistik,  in  Mueller's  Randtuch,  Vol.2 
pt.2,  4 ed.  Munich,  1910. 

Schmidt,  Commentatio  de  Tkeopfcrasto  Fhetore, 

Schrader,  De  Particulis  -Ne, Anne,  Nonne  apud  Flautum  Frosodia,  StrassturA, 
188  r . 

Sextus  Empiricus,  Pyrrboniarua  Inst  it ut ior urn  Libri  III.  ed.  Fabric-ins, 

Leipzig,  1940. 

Sloman,  A Grammar  of  Classical  Latin,  Cambridge,  190*. 


— — — 

9* 

Fonnenscbein,  £ Latin  Greair.ar,  2 ed.  Oxford,  1914. 

Spengel,  Fbetores  Graeci,  Leipzig,  13p3. 

Otraut,  De  Tropis  et  Figuris,  ouae  inveniurtur  in  Orationitus  Derrest  leni  s 
et  Cicercnis,  Wtfr2burg,  1393. 

Ftriller,  Ee  Stoicorui*  Studiis  Fbetoricis,  Vratislsv,  198*. 

Volkoann,  Die  Fhetorik  der  Griecben  und  FiJmer,  2 ed.,  Leipzig,  188p. 

’Aalz,  Fbetores  Graeei,  Tfltingen,  13*2. 

Warren,  On  the  Enclitic  -ne  in  Early  Latin,  J.J.F.,  2,  pp.  "9-32. 

Wolff,  De  Fnuntiatis  Interrogat ivis  apud  Catullus,  Tibullun;,  Properties, 
Halle,  1833. 

7u!ipt,  £ Gramrar  of  the  Latin  Language,  tr.  Sebnit2,  9 ed.  ”e»  York,  1377. 


